NASA Employee Slams Obama on Climate
NASA’s James Hansen Slams Obama’s Failure to Lead on Climate, Rolling Stone
“President Obama can’t catch a break: Just when he gets right with the gays, the greens come after him. In today’s New York Times NASA’s leading climate scientist James Hansen takes the president to task for not doing jack on climate change. “President Obama speaks of a ‘planet in peril,'” Hansen fumes, “but he does not provide the leadership needed to change the world’s course.”
One could get rich betting against all the apocalyptic predictions made by Hansen and his band of merry socialists.
Yawn. How much more intellectually lazy can one get? You disagree with Hansen’s science ergo he’s a “socialist” and anyone who agrees with him is automatically a “socialist” – and you do so hiding behind a fake name.
Yeah, but I don’t hide behind a fake name. For all of Hansen’s activism and whining about skeptics who are only pointing to falsifying data, it might be interesting to know who wrote these words many years ago:
“Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism”
and
“Although scientists have a right to express personal opinions related to policy issues, it seems to me that we can be of more use by focusing on the science and carrying that out with rigorous objectivity. That approach seems to be essential for the success, as well as the “fun”, of scientific research”
My my, how tones have changed…could it be all the EXTRA $ Mr. Hansen makes outside of NASA? All that money he so conveniently forgot to declare, as required by law?
Where is your data to refute what Hansen et al have published? Peer-reviewed references from scientific journals only, please.
Very well, let’s just start out with this one first. It attacks the common fallacy that many people who do not understand thermodynamics believe that “climate scientists” do understand it, and that their models accurately reflect known thermodynamics. Your response to this will determine whether you are willing to accept falsification, or whether you are wedded to your view that climate models are “right”. If you respond with a logical fallacy as your basis, there may be no point in providing others.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/a…
Peer reviewed, and published in International Journal of Modern Physics.
I can’t reply to Ray’s comment below since the comment nesting is too deep, so am replying here.
From a brief read, (in both the abstract and section II) the article refers to the greenhouse effect as:
“essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”
Well… When I’ve heard the greenhouse effect described, it had nothing to do with a heat pump. Arguing that such a heat pump is impossible is off-topic, a strawman.
Simply put, the Earth only interacts with its environment via radiation. Radiation comes in, and is either reflected, re-emitted, or absorbed.
Changing the atmospheric makeup changes the fractions that get reflected and re-emitted, and we know that CO2, Methane and Water Vapor over all increase the amount that is absorbed.
There are arguments that the Earth reacts to these increase in absorption in a way that will mitigate the problem (negative feedback), but from what I’ve seen these mechanisms are weak in comparison with those that increase the problem (positive feedback)
Sections 3.3.x in the paper basically nitpick through paragraphs from earlier publications, making things much more complex than they need be, and are not arguing for any alternative models.
Peer-reviewed or not, this is not a paper that puts forwards a model and tests it.
Bunk.
Seems that Ray Hudson can only find *one* article. Hmmm, funny that.
Seems that Ray Hudson can only find *one* article. Hmmm, funny that.
That would be incorrect. If you note in my initial reply I stated: “let’s just start out with this one first…” I stated that because I do intend to present yet more peer reviewed papers, such as the one at the end of this reply. To be fair, I should also divulge that I have purposefully selected to present one paper and at a time, and in a very specific order. If you are astute enough to figure out why, it may cause one to re-think their uses of snarky comments, as things could get quite interesting.
Furthermore, I would like to point out something most ironic. Keith’s initial response above was to chastise someone for questioning the dogma of Anthropogenic Global Warming using an anonymous moniker. Yet we see the first responder to my post, one “meekGee,” is not just anonymous, but s/he is calling a paper by credentialed scientists, which passed the peer review process for an international journal, “bunk.” Wow, that must take some guts. What is ironic is that Keith chastised the person above, but the person who posts anonymously but who also totes the AGW party line gets a pass.
So I have presented one paper that is both scientific and peer reviewed. I now offer another one to see what excuses will be offered for why this is not falsification of AGW claims (BTW, “bunk” is not a proper scientific refutation, as far as I know):
http://www.met.reading.ac.u…
There are more, but let’s see how (or if) you, the faithful, decide to try and hand wave this one away.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner is maybe, and Eli say maybe, about a micrometer better than the Sky Dragons whom you might enjoy reading about, but the best you can say for them is that they don’t believe that backradiation from the sky to the earth is heat transfer. In any case, that is a transfer of energy which ensures that the surface is warmer than if the transfer did not occur. \
Science of Doom does a good job tearing that paper apart
Another thing that is ironic is that we hear the AGW proponent side demand peer reviewed, scientific articles. Yet it is fine, just fine, for them to cite blogs that attempt to refute said peer reviewed articles, rather than scholarly (also peer reviewed) rebuttal articles. And even worse than blogs, we have people answering anonymously in forum posts on a NASA blog who think that is acceptable scientific rebuttal. In doing this, you have just invalidated your demand for ONLY scientific, peer reviewed literature. But perhaps I digress (or perhaps there is a point to my citing this irony?)
Let’s move on to the next peer reviewed article citation which presents yet more falsifying evidence to one of the central scientific theory elements of AGW, which is the closed-loop feedback effect of clouds….which is presumed by AGW scientists to be a warming (positive, destabilizing) feedback on a global scale.
http://www.drroyspencer.com…
Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research by climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer (will we hear ad hominem attacks on his credentials in response?), the reason I cite this paper at this time actually relates to the irony I cite above in my introduction to this post. This paper is a follow-up to an earlier paper that Spencer and Braswell published in 2010. In the intervening time there was a single hostile reviewer (Dessler) who published a paper that critiqued the work of Spencer and Braswell. So you see, this is an example of how science and peer review actually works, and how it is used in scientific debates. Not the one-sided way you folks seem to use it, where you demand peer reviewed publications by your debate foes, but you find it just fine for your unqualified selves to tear apart that peer reviewed paper all on your own, and ignore when people call you to task for your hypocrisy.
Isn’t this grand fun? I note that the replies to me seem to have ceased. I will not make any assumptions as to why. Rather, I will only ask: Would you like to see more peer reviewed, scientific papers that formally falsify one of the biggest precepts of the AGW theory?
Sorry, I believe I may have posted the original (2010) Spencer & Braswell paper in my last reply. I meant to post their 2011 rebuttal to Dessler which was peer reviewed and published in Remote Sensing. This later paper is much more direct in pointing out (falsifying) the claims that AGW scientists make on their certainty of climate feedback sensitivity, which is built into their climate models that have consistently over-estimated warming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com…
ha. So many times I’ve thought the same thing, Keith. Unless there’s a reason for anonymity, ‘man up’. Use your name.
Some of us don’t see Dr. Hansen as having been ‘discredited’. He’s passionate about the cause and earns my respect for it.
Michael Spencer
All the President and Congress have to do to stop putting excess CO2 into the atmosphere is to simply mandate that 50% of all electricity produced by a US utility come from carbon neutral sources (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biowaste, etc.) by 2020 (several US utilities already meet this criteria), and 90% by 2030 with the penalty of a 15% sin tax on the sale of electricity from any US utility that fails to meet this criteria.
They should also mandate that 10% of liquid transportation fuels in the US should come from carbon neutral resources by 2020. Carbon neutral gasoline, methanol, dimethyl ether, diesel fuel, and jet fuel can easily be derived from urban and rural biowaste and from the synthesis of electrolysis produced hydrogen from water and CO2 directly extracted from the atmosphere. 50% of transportation fuel should be mandated to come from carbon neutral resources by 2030, and 90% by 2040. Again, a 15% sin tax would be placed on the sale of all fuels that fail to meet this criteria.
Even though such fuels will probably be more expensive than petroleum based fuels (at least at today’s prices), they’ll be easily affordable by consumers since most people will probably be driving plug-in-hybrids by 2030 and 2040, which should make even the most expensive fuels– inexpensive to utilize.
Marcel F. Williams
A 15% tax is far less than what it would take to make the economics work out for replacing 50% or more of fossil fuels in electricity production.
The detail vary somewhat in different studies, but Wikipedia has a summary of one of the more reputable reports: a 2010 report by the U.S. Department of energy that estimates the levelized total system costs for new plants entering service in 2016. This includes all costs amortized over the lifetime of the plant in cost per unit energy produced, so they are an apples-to-apples comparison.
The lowest cost power plant type is an advanced combined cycle natural gas plant, with a cost of 63.1. Add a 15% tax to that and the cost is still just 72.6. Compare that with 113.9 for nuclear, 112.5 for biomass, 210.7 for photo-voltaic solar, and 311.8 for solar thermal. There are only limited locations that are amenable to hydro plants, and most of those have already been used in the U.S. (plus it causes a huge change in the local ecosystem) and even then the cost is 86.4, which is still more expensive than gas with a 15% tax. Wind has similar problems, in that there are relatively few places with the right conditions to make it work, and many of them have already been exploited, and even then the cost is 97.0, again more expensive. You can go off-shore with wind, but then the costs skyrocket to 243.2.
Nothing at all can match the cost of natural gas, even with a 15% tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
The idea that you can move away from fossil fuels without a huge increase in costs is a fantasy.
Doesn’t the cost for gas assume a fixed price for that commodity? When the demand increases I would expect that price to climb.
It should also be noted that natural gas can be converted into methanol which can be converted into gasoline through Exxon’s MTG process. New Zealand use to produce gasoline through this processs from natural gas during the 1990s until oil prices began to drop.
If petroleum prices continue to rise over the next few decades then its likely that natural gas may again be utilized for the production of gasoline which will could result in a significant increase in natural gas prices.
Marcel F. Williams
I disagree with you about Wind. We’ve barely scratched the surface here. Basically the entire Great Plains has some of the best wind power potential in the world. It has its issues and limitations (transmission, variability) but we’re not getting close to running out of places.
http://www.smartplanet.com/…
http://www.climateatlas.org…
Thanks hikingmike- and don’t forget the massive potential of offshore wind with NO variability.
It’s clear that an affordable mix of renewables will have to be implemented together, along with demand management and many more “passivehaus” and LEED certified designs/builds (like NASA’s new LEED platium building “Sustainability Base”)
Heck even the Empire State just got a great new refit- saving loads of Utility Bill dollars and lowering it’s carbon footprint significantly. A win win for owners, tenants, and the Planet.
As for any Federal action other than Presidential Executive Orders-It’s an odd time to try to get anything through congress. When GOP folks line up against a small private launch company, it’s clear that special interests have near complete control of that body.
Getting back to Dr Hanson, He’s been sounding the call re warming since the 70’s – but I think his tone re Tar Sands “Game over ” might be over stretching it.
Tar sands are bad- and the “all in” calculation shows that using Tar Sands pumps 1.2 to 1.5x the amount of carbon vis a vis conventional Oil recovery. Don’t know the C02 calculus against Offshore drilling or the coming scary plans to hit the Arctic for Oil
1.2x -1.5x is bad, but it’s not “Game Over”. Vilifying Obama in Rolling Stone isn’t helpful.
Through executive Order, Obama is moving the ball.
It can be argued he spent needed Political Capital on HealthCare, and had nothing left for Carbon legislation-
However, the new car Mileage standards, Arpa E, The new carbon levels for power plants… the ball is moving.
Hanson isn’t being as helpful here as he could have been.
1. First of all, the 15% sin tax would apply to all of the electricity produced by a utility if the 50% criteria is not reached– not just the fossil fuel power plants,. And that would be in addition to taxes already charged by Federal and local governments. But I wouldn’t want to raise a sin tax so high that it might cripple a utility’s ability sustain itself.
2. You assume that there will be no significant increase in the cost of fossil fuels over the next 10 to 20 years, which seems unlikely. So utilities that fail to reach the 50% criteria would have to deal with increasing fossil fuel cost plus an additional 15% increase in the cost of their total electricity production.
3. There are already utilities in the US that produce more electricity from carbon neutral resources than from fossil fuels thanks mostly to nuclear and hydroelectric power. States like New York, Illinois, and Washington, for instance, already produce most of their electricity from carbon neutral resources.
4. I would use the revenue from the sin tax from those utilities that fail to reach the required minimum percentages to finance a clean energy bank for utilities seeking loans to finance the building of clean energy power plants.
5. By 2020, the first commercial small nuclear reactors will start to be produced. These centrally manufactured and serially mass produced reactors could dramatically lower the capital cost of nuclear reactors in the 2020s and 2030s.
Its a fantasy that fossil fuels are cheap. Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the tax payers. Protecting the Persian Gulf oil routes alone cost American’s $30 to $70 billion annually. The health consequences of coal have been estimated to cost Americans between $300 billion to $500 billion annually.
Unearthing the True Cost of Fossil Fuels
http://www.treehugger.com/e…
Marcel F. Williams
While I hope Dr. Hansen will be careful to distinguish his actions as a private citizen from those taken as a NASA scientist, those observations he has reported as facts are correct. His statements on the Canadian tar sands are factually perfectly accurate, but in my opinion world carbon dioxide production won’t be affected significantly by the Keystone pipeline and so politically it is not a reasonable target for environmental activism.
Although there are people on both sides of the issue who take their positions for political reasons, the evidence that global CO2 is rising because of fossil fuel consumption and that global temperature, ocean acidity, and sea level are rising as a result is, to anyone who actually reads the research with an open mind, nothing short of conclusive. There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of these effects. That uncertainty is best resolved by better data and modeling, not by slashing funds for climate science as the GOP is trying to do. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t make the real world go away.
NASA can certainly do more (in coordination with the DOE) in alternative energy research, both in photovoltaic and wind energy, and should be funded to do so. Environmentalists should recognize that nuclear energy is a vital part of the equation and help the US move toward a sustainable and safe nuclear energy program through designation of a national fuel reprocessing and waste storage facility.
Scientific credibility depends on scientific research and scientific conclusions, not on political activism. I would hope you would read Dr. Hansen’s publications before drawing conclusions about them.
Some of his critics do:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/…
The divergence between his predictions and subsequent reality is reasonable grounds for criticism.
First let me say that I greatly appreciate your providing a link.
However the blog post you refer to by Floyd Doughty contains no statistical analysis whatsoever, and takes the liberty of doing such things as applying a “bulk shift” to data to make the points line up. When Doughty is done he has a graph that still shows global temperatures rising at a rapid clip, the same average slope (as far as I can tell) as 20 years ago, he says that it doesn’t quite match th prediction Hansen made in 1973, and therefore Hansen must be wrong. Doughty than makes the ridiculous claim that the line he derives from data he downloaded seems a little closer to the line postulated by Hansen to suggest a slowing of CO2 increase than the one indicating increasing CO2 release, and says this proves Hansen is wrong and global warming doesn’t exist.To look at a graph that he himself drew that shows an obviously increasing average global temperature and say this somehow proves the globe is not warming is absurd.
The bulk shift was done to account for the discrepancies between the data that Hansen published in 1989 and 1999 for the same time periods. That still doesn’t account for the the overlay of the satellite measured temperature record, which is more reliable that the surface station record given its fewer and better understood sources of error. But even if you overlook those overlays and consider just the overlay with Hansen’s own data with no adjustment for his data shift between publications, the actual history still lies between his scenario B & C even though the historical record of green house gas emissions is in line with the assumptions for his scenario A.
Ergo, the historical record shows that Hansen’s demonstrated forecasting accuracy is not above reproach.
If you still disagree, follow the comments on Doughty’s post and you will find a link to Hansen’s own comparison, which shows essentially the same results as Doughty’s overlays:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mh…
FWIW, the 1988 paper came up with a slightly high temperature sensitivity to CO2 doubling and a slightly low scenario B for greenhouse gas concentration growth. All in all, this only would make a difference 20-30 years down the pike, but the estimate has been pretty good over the ~24 years since then.
Jim Hansen and the large group of climate scientists who work with him at GISS and Columbia University have consistently (since at least the 1970s) been amassing data and modeling climate change with increasing accuracy. They are among the best climate scientists in the world. It is sickening to see how a handful of climate deniers, backed by deep-pocket political interests (like the Heartland Institute, which has recently posted ads comparing climate scientists to mass murderers), have distorted the data and attacked the scientific community to the point where a large minority of Americans reject climate change. These are not skeptics. They are pseudoskeptics, who publish nothing in the scientific literature on climate but devote themselves to attacking and distorting what is a nearly unanimous international consensus among climate scientists.
When the deniers don’t have the benefit of data on their side they always default to name calling.
Mr. Morrison & Mr. Cowing, I believe you are well aware that “denier” is a deliberate pejorative meant to malign climate change skeptics and to evade substantive debate. If this is to be a rational intellectual discussion, the correct term would be skeptic or critic, so I call on you to desist with the name calling.
Agreed that the Heartland Institute billboard was irresponsible, but consider that it was in part response to similar ads from their critics comparing Heartland to the Norwegian terrorists in like fashion.
http://wattsupwiththat.file…
In this regard the hands of the climate change proponents are far too dirty themselves to be the ones to cry foul.
As for your supposition that Hansen’s track record on the science is particularly stellar or that his critics do not engage him on the merits of his science, let’s consider the record of his own data versus his own predictions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/…
Based on their track record so far, Hansen’s critics have a valid argument that the credibility of his group’s forecasting skill is not unimpeachable.
Why do you use a fake name when you post here? It is just as easy to use your real name as it is to use a fake one whose significance is not apparent.
Your blog rules allow for it. Why do you not question others who post anonymously?
Besides, there is meaning in the pseudonym I chose that is pertinent to this and other discussions.
One thing has long concerned me and still does: If those who say we are in trouble are wrong, we don’t really lose anything necessary to the welfare of humanity. On the other hand, if the deniers are wrong, and would should foolishly follow their policies, then we’re all screwed before too long, the guilty and the innocent alike.
It is better to ere on the side of caution. Better safe than sorry. etc… Anybody who would dismiss this time-honored wisdom just to save a few bucks, or whatever alleged reason, is incredibly selfish, and, in my mind, has therefore surrendered all the benefits of society. Too bad it doesn’t work that way; we might have more people who are considerate of others and the world we all share.
Although there is room for debate as to what things are adversely affecting our environment, and at what rates, I don’t see how there can be any doubt in the mind of anyone who had read up on the situation at all. And even an illiterate can see from photgraphs, or even the sky where he/she lives, that the atmosphere is changing. Talk to any serious asthma sufferer who has moved from the country to the city.
So, in the end, does it really matter what the causes were? What the concerned scientists are looking at are wayse to undo those changes. I couldn’t care less wheter the methods that they propose are actually connected in any way to the causes, if those methods can “fix” the problem. Independent of the values of anybody’s presented evidence, I think people who outright deny that there are environmental problems that need serious attention are fools, and are guilty of polluting the minds of people who don’t know any better. May their grandchildren grow up in a healthy world.
Steve
Not too long ago I read a blog poster who said, to answer the question of whether global warming (sorry, climate change) is real, all we have to do is wait and see. If it’s real, there will come a time when the global effects will be obvious.
On May 7th, there was an article on scienedaily.com with the title,
New Research Brings Satellite Measurements and Global Climate Models Closer . Here is a quick synopsis: “One popular climate record that shows a slower atmospheric warming trend
than other studies contains a data calibration problem, and when the
problem is corrected the results fall in line with other records and
climate models, according to a new University of Washington study….They identified a problem with the satellite temperature record put
together by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Researchers there
were the first to release such a record, in 1989, and it has often been
cited by climate change skeptics to cast doubt on models that show the
impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.”
Now contrast the science with American opinion. On May 8th, also at sciencedaily, there was this article:
Support for Climate Change Action Drops, Poll Finds Another quick synopsis: Americans’ support for government action on global warming remains high
but has dropped during the past two years, according to a new survey by
Stanford researchers in collaboration with Ipsos Public Affairs.
Political rhetoric and cooler-than-average weather appear to have
influenced the shift, but economics doesn’t appear to have played a
role….On average, 72 percent of respondents supported government action on
climate change in 2010. By 2012, that support had dropped to 62 percent.The drop was concentrated among Americans who distrust climate
scientists, even more so among such people who identify themselves as
Republicans. Americans who do not trust climate science were especially
aware of and influenced by recent shifts in world temperature, and 2011
was tied for the coolest of the last 11 years.”
The irony is that as long term data an modeling continue to improve, and that multiple lines of scientific inquiry lead to similar conclusions, some people are becoming more adamant that the evidence is bogus. As the old saying goes, time will tell. Unfortunately, saying I told you so after the fact in a few decades isn’t going to be something to gloat over.
Hey, I have a great idea. Have NASA folk lead the way on reducing carbon emissions by NOT flying to any conferences at all. Just stay in your cubes and interact via phone or email. But then, they wouldn’t be able to travel to so many fun places, would they…
The fact of the matter is that these enviro nuts want nothing but to send everyone (except themselves) back to the stone age of living. They want us to stop driving, traveling, barbecuing, and eating meat. They care nothing about the common man, and the enormous hardships and consequences that would fall on them should their agenda go forward.
The scientific debate on global warming is over, 99.99% of climate scientists world wide from every country all over the planet have come to agree on this after 4 decades of research, analysis, and peer review. The current debate is purely political. Every single report or analysis that tries to refute this theory (remember, theories are proven in the scientific vernacular) comes from organizations or individuals funded by the oil, gas, or coal industries.
Forget the science for a minute. Do you really think that we could, in the last century, extract over a billion years worth of biomass from the Earth’s crust, burn it and eject the by-products into the environment without having a serious detrimental effect on the climate? Does anyone truly believe that the human race does not have an adverse effect on our environment? Of course we do, and the data supports it.
“If those who say we are in trouble are wrong, we don’t really lose anything necessary to the welfare of humanity.”
Except things like freedom and economic well-being, nothing really necessary I suppose.
Aside from wholesale implementation of nuclear power (which is a necessary thing for many reasons), none of the remedies proposed by those who say “we must do something” come without out substantial risk and cost.
Hansen is reacting unhinged because he’s had his fill of ingorant and corrupt people. For every statement he releases petroleum companies are funding millions to belittle his viewpoint. This is not much different than cigarette companies trying to hide they fact they cause cancer.
Most publications that refute anthropogenic global warming violate basic conservation laws or apply completely unrealistic scenarios. We know very well what C02 and other greenhouse gases do in a thermodynamic sense. These little straw man arguments, i.e “Hansen’s prediction was incorrect by a percent” never refute the main idea adequately. I doubt many apply the same scrutiny to weather forecasts, and that is usually expected with a higher degree of certainty.
The past letter to a Charlie Bolden on Global Warming by a contingent former JSC employees was despicable by all measures. It is a clear sign of deeper problems at the agency.
50yrs of manned spaceflight and NASA has no manned launch capability as it stands today. It has nothing to do with politics, some of you are just not scientifically capable to develop and often more importantly pretend that you are competent, when it is far from the case.