Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time

[magellan]

Feb 6, 2009 14:19:37 GMT steve said:

Feb 6, 2009 13:32:37 GMT dopeydog said:

The hijacking of science continues:

icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society.pdf

Good document. I can now refer to it as an example of how Bill Gray has comprehensive discredited himself.

In particular:

[Hansen] appears to think that man's emittance of CO2 gas, if unchecked, will eventually follow a similar fate (to Venus's runaway warming

A quote indicating either utter cluelessness or a preparedness to tell breath-taking whoppers.

Hansen's model prediction has done very well indeed. In 1988 the sceptics and deniers were saying exactly the same things as now. Since then we've had about 0.3C of warming.

Hansen 1 (or maybe 0.7 to be more than fair) - sceptics nil (or probably minus several zillion).

A quote indicating either utter cluelessness or a preparedness to tell breath-taking whoppers.

Really steve?
is.gd/P6m6iA

This is especially for socold

Self proclaimed “Hansen’s Bulldog” (now oddly deleted but available at the Wayback machine via this link), the blogger known as “Tamino” loves to bloviate his views about imagined cherrypicking whenever he thinks we aren’t showing everything we are supposed to, such as sea level trend lines shown clearly three times. But, when NASA’s Dr. James Hansen leaves out 25 years worth of data, such things apparently escape his notice.

Yes, Tamino has been doing a lot of shredding this past year.

[sigurdur]

Tamino is lame. The gymnastic motions he goes through to try and proove something that is not proveable are quit interesting to watch.

[socold]

Apr 24, 2011 4:54:32 GMT magellan said:

Feb 6, 2009 14:19:37 GMT steve said:

But, when NASA’s Dr. James Hansen leaves out 25 years worth of data, such things apparently escape his notice.

Yes, Tamino has been doing a lot of shredding this past year.

The reason Hansen starts in 1980 is probably because this starts in 1980:

psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

Those who entertain the idea that Hansen is being dishonest regularly make such mistakes.

A case in point:
www.skepticalscience.com/Open_Mind_Archive_Index.html

[trbixler]

As regular as clockwork Hansen promotes AGW.

"On ocean heat content, Pinatubo, Hansen, Bulldogs, cherrypicking and all that"

Jimmey 1


Jimmy 2 (the whole picture)


wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/23/on-ocean-heat-content-pinatubo-hansen-bulldogs-cherrypicking-and-all-that/

[socold]

As I mentioned, Hansen was comparing the data to this:

psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

So it seems he has to start the comparison in 1980.

[sigurdur]

He started when he knew it suited his needs in the paper. That is not surprising is it?
I honestly think he is starting to exibit the signs of dementia. Has been going on for some time as his reasoning in his last few papers is getting so thin.

[sigurdur]

Not only that, but his temperature metrics have become so shoddy that GISS is a laughingstock in the US. We have a lottttt of local thermomiters, and we also have the NWS. The disagreement anymore between temps and trends is a blatant red flag.
I am speaking of the US in this comment. I don't live in Europe, nor Africa etc. I do know what is happening here, and GISS is not recording it accurately. I wish Mr. Hansen would retire as his actions are clouding climate science in the US.

[socold]

"He started when he knew it suited his needs in the paper. That is not surprising is it?"

I don't think it does suit the needs in his paper to start it in 1980. I think that's the big con - the suggestion that starting in 1980 is somehow necessary to support his argument. It's a nice trick by WUWT to pick over while ignoring 99% of Hansen's actual paper, including this:

[sigurdur]

Socold:
I am assuming that the 800, 700 etc is years before present. With present tech, we are having a hard time getting reliable deep ocean temps, which only confirms my point about shoddy science on his part. The last graph is unuseable. The error bars on reconstructions I have read about deep ocean temps is so large that the whole area up and down on that graph should be in the error bar range.

That is just one exampe. When you put forth a paper, at least go to the effort of putting forth something of value. This is an example of writing for writings sake.

[socold]

It's in thousands of years. That's the last 800,000 years

[magellan]

Apr 24, 2011 15:12:38 GMT sigurdur said:

Not only that, but his temperature metrics have become so shoddy that GISS is a laughingstock in the US. We have a lottttt of local thermomiters, and we also have the NWS. The disagreement anymore between temps and trends is a blatant red flag.
I am speaking of the US in this comment. I don't live in Europe, nor Africa etc. I do know what is happening here, and GISS is not recording it accurately. I wish Mr. Hansen would retire as his actions are clouding climate science in the US.

.....GISS is a laughingstock in the US.

He's becoming a laughing stock period.

I recall socold saying [nobody ever said there would be a runaway greenhouse effect]. There is no question Hansen is saying just that.

[william]

Socold,

What Hansen and Real Climate do not explain, is the paleo climatic data (if one looks at all of the data) does not support atmospheric CO2 as the primary driver of the planet’s climate. What Hansen and Real Climate conveniently ignore is the dozen of papers that show large scale changes in GCR which occur as the solar system moves in and out of the central plane of the Milky Way galaxy correlate with the ice epochs. The ice epochs are cyclically. Atmospheric CO2 is high when the planet has been cold and has been low when the planet has been warm. There are multiple papers that discuss this fact.


journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/GC/article/download/2691/3114

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle

The situation is entirely different for the CO2 scenario. For the Phanerozoic, the estimates of atmospheric pCO2 levels are not only internally inconsistent, but they also do not show any correlation with the paleoclimate record (Fig. 5, bottom). In that case, what could be an alternative driving force of climate on geological time scales?

As suggested by theoretical considerations, the “icehouse” episodes and the oxygen isotope cold intervals should coincide with times of high cosmic ray flux, and the “greenhouse” ones with the low CRF (Fig. 6). This correlation may explain about 2/3 of the observed oxygen isotope “temperature” signal (Shaviv and Veizer, 2003). Thus celestial phenomena were likely the principal driver of climate on million year time scales.

What does this mean for the global carbon cycle? The simplest assumption would be that it might not have been that different from today. Yet, such a proposition is difficult to reconcile with the so-called “faint young sun” paradox (Sagan and Mullen, 1972). Based on our understanding of the evolution of stars, the young sun was about 30 percent less luminous than it is today, and became brighter with age. With such low radiative energy from the sun, our planet should have been a frozen ice ball until about 1 billion years (Ga) ago. Yet, we know that running water shaped the surface of the planet as far back as the geologic record goes.

To resolve this paradox, some argue that a massive greenhouse, caused principally by CO2 (e.g., Kasting, 1993), must have warmed up the young earth. Theoretical calculations, set up to counteract the lower solar luminosity, yield CO2 atmospheric concentrations up to ten thousand times greater than today’s value of 0.035 %. Yet, this is at odds with the geologic record. For example, at low seawater pH, expected from such high partial pressures of carbon dioxide (pCO2), ancient limestones should be enriched in 18O relative to their younger counterparts, yet the secular trend that we observe in the geologic record (Shields and Veizer, 2002) shows exactly the opposite.

A plausible alternative is a change in the cloud cover (Rossow et al., 1982) because clouds can compensate for 50% variations in radiative energy of the sun (Ou, 2001), bringing forward again the role of CRF as the potential solution. Considering that young stars of the same category as our sun would have been characterized by a stronger solar wind that muted the CRF, the resulting reduction in cloudiness may have compensated for the sun’s reduced luminosity (Shaviv, 2003). Note also that theoretical models of Milky Way evolution indicate a diminished star formation rate between ~ 2 and 1 Ga ago, while the Paleo- and Neoproterozoic were strong maxima.

[william]

The ice epochs are cyclic. The hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of climate can not explain the ice epochs periodicity and cannot explain ice epochs have occurred in the past when atmospheric CO2 has high. (i.e. What could cause CO2 to change cyclically and how can an ice epoch occur when CO2 levels were high.)

The alternative hypothesis (which is discussed in dozen of published papers) is that planetary climate is modulated by changes in the magnitude and the intensity of galactic cosmic rays which occur as the solar system moves in and out of the center plane of the milky galaxy. Nir Shaviv has been able to show the timing of large GCR changes matches the timing of the occurrence of the ice epochs by analyzing the isotopes in meteorites.


Nir J. Shaviv

www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy. Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general
circulation models.

www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html

RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC RAY FLUXES —The starting point of SV03 is a reconstruction of cosmic ray fluxes over the past 1,000 Myr based on 50 iron meteorites and a simple model estimating cosmic ray flux (CRF) induced by the Earth’s passage through Galactic spiral arms ([Shaviv, 2002; Shaviv, 2003]). About 20 of the meteorites, making four clusters, date from the past 520 Myr, the time span analysed in SV03. The meteorites are dated by analysing isotopic changes in their matter due to cosmic ray exposure (CRE dating [Eugster, 2003]). An apparent age clustering of these meteorites is then interpreted not as a collision-related clustering in their real ages but as an indication of fluctuations in cosmic ray flux (CRF). One difficulty with this interpretation is that variations in CRF intensity would equally affect all types of meteorites. Instead, the ages of different types of iron meteorites cluster at different times [Wieler, 2002]. Hence, most specialists on meteorite CRE ages interpret the clusters as the result of collision processes of parent bodies, as they do for stony meteorites (ages _ 130 Myr) to which more than one dating method can be applied.

[sigurdur]

William:
A lot of people think the Milakovick theory is iron clad. There is correlation, but the actual causeation is not there. There are a LOT of holes in the Milakovick theory.

Actually, there are a lot of holes in the C02 theory as well. As I stated, the 800 year lag shows one large gapping hole that is continually ignored, but yet known.

[william]

There are multiple paradoxes which the Milankovitch theory cannot explain.

Interglacials end abruptly. Glacial periods end abruptly. There is a 1 million pound monster that can abruptly change the planet's climate by 2C to 4C. There are massive changes in GCR that are concurrent with the abrupt climate changes. There is a smoking gun at the scene of the crime.

It appears we are going to have a chance to live through an abrupt climate event. Predicting the future is fairly easy when the sun is repeating one of these special events. The sun is the 1 million pound monster that can and does abruptly change the planet's climate by 2C to 4C. The mechanism is not however TSI changes.

Termination 2 Problem

Direct Determination of the Timing of Sea Level Change During Termination II

Christina D. Gallup,1* H. Cheng,2 F. W. Taylor,3 R. L. Edwards2
An outcrop within the last interglacial terrace on Barbados contains corals that grew during the penultimate deglaciation, or Termination II. We used combined 230Th and 231Pa dating to determine that they grew 135.8 ± 0.8 thousand years ago, indicating that sea level was 18 ± 3 meters below present sea level at the time. This suggests that sea level had risen to within 20% of its peak last-interglacial value by 136 thousand years ago, in conflict with Milankovitch theory predictions. Orbital forcing may have played a role in the deglaciation, as may have isostatic adjustments due to large ice sheets. Other corals in the same outcrop grew during oxygen isotope ( 18O) substage 6e, indicating that sea level was 38 ± 5 meters below present sea level, about 168.0 thousand years ago. When compared to the 18O signal in the benthic V19-30/V19-28 record at that time, the coral data extend to the previous glacial cycle the conclusion that deep-water temperatures were colder during glacial periods.
1 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN 55812, USA.
2 Minnesota Isotope Laboratory, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
3 Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image4.gif


upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg/500px-Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg.png


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

100,000-year problem

The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively great 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[8] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[9][10]

400,000-year problem

The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved—in particular, the carbon cycle.

Stage 5 problem

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun ten thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem.

Effect exceeds cause
See also: Climate change feedback
420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

The unsplit peak problem

The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,[11] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.

The transition problem
Variations of Cyle Times, curves determined from ocean sediments

The transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switchd to a 100ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established.

Identifying dominant factor

Milankovich himself believed that reductions in summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which led to him (incorrectly) deducing a 41ish-kyr period for ice ages.[12] Subsequent research has shown that the 100kyr eccentricity cycle is more important, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years.