Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Hansens 1988 projections

RealClimate – May 15, 2007

RealClimate is a great site.  If you are not reading this site regularly, you should.  Their articles tend to be much more technical than what I put here on a daily basis and the frequent commentators in the comments tend to really know the science and chemistry behind the weather.  I know that a lot of professionals consider RealClimate to be part of their weekly reading regiment. That being said, I don’t always agree with everything that the editors post (what would be the fun in that).  They certainly have a theme and a message for their site and one should take that into perspective but since I encourage everyone to have an open mind on these very technical and critical matters, reading a well-written site like RealClimate is part of the process.

30 years ago was a bad day for science

This article is fairly accurate. It doesn’t point out the real reason that Hansen was wrong and that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has essentially slowed down to almost stopped.

The real reason is that it is the physical and energy nature of the CO2 molecule that it simply has no more radiation to absorb. CO2 can only absorb a very narrow band of radiation and that radiation is approximately 95-98% absorbed already. You could triple the CO2 in the atmosphere and all you would do is decrease that narrow band closer and closer to 0% (it is impossible to get 100%). That simply means a 2-4% increase in absorption in about 1/10th of the wavelengths that are long enough to be called “heat”.

ClimateGate Who’s Who

The names in the leaked emails of East Anglia CRU are probably not familiar with many readers of this site. While most know of Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and Nobel prize winner, and James Hansen of NASA, few scientists in this field get much notoriety.

MagicJavaTV put out a slide show in the form of a YouTube video.  It is a great overview of the people involved in this recent revelation.

ClimateGate Who’s Who

Are the numbers real?

I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day about global warming.  Not surprisingly, I get into this conversation a lot.  I made mention that a significant minority of the data that is used to decipher our warming is actually modified or estimated.  My co-worker was shocked at this so I wanted to share it with my readers.

The best analysis of this process that I have seen is written by Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit in two separate discussions.  From February 9th:

Unfortunately, the previous year’s December temperature is not included in the first year of a scribal record, so it must be estimated. And because December must be estimated, the resulting DJF is an estimate, as is the resulting annual temperature.

In Science, Ignorance is not Bliss

Launch Magazine – July/August issue

Walter Cunningham is one of the astronauts of Apollo 7.  He writes about global warming in the latest issue of Launch Magazine and his comments bear considering.

Mr. Cunningham is important in this discussion because of his obvious intelligence and past leadership but also in his strong ability in analyzing scientific and political events and drawing conclusions.

What I find to be most compelling are:

  • his ridicule of climate models.
  • his discussions of correlation and causation.
  • the replacement of scientific discussion with emotional arguments.
  • the condemnation of Mr. Hansen – one of the early warning voices of global warming and an employee of NASA.

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

The Guardian – June 23, 2008

Jim Hansen of NASA must have finally gone off the deep end.  While the man is probably brilliant, his call to put the CEOs of companies on trial for global warming is one of the most radical statements that I have heard in this global warming discussion. He states that he is 99% certain that carbon dioxide has already passed the safe level.

Mr. Hansen is certainly free to challenge the election of politicians and to speak on what he feels needs to be done.  However, when someone calls for radical measures such as putting CEOs on trial for high crimes against humanity, I immediately put him into the weirdo bucket and dismiss him as a heretic.

The Soros Threat To Democracy

Investor’s Business Daily – September 24, 2007

This article is a commentary, so obviously we need to take all of the accusations with a bit of a grain of salt. While it did appear in a major daily newspaper, it doesn’t have to withstand the same levels of care that a news article needs.

The article covers George Soros, the wealthy benefactor to many political causes. The reason that I am writing about it is due to one of its claims: James Hansen received money from a Soros group. James Hansen, as you may remember, works for NASA and is one of the primary influencers in the discussion of global warming. His works and speeches are cited throughout the web and if you do a search in the Search box on this site, you will see him referenced often.

Inside the Beltway – Cold yet?

The Washington Times – September 19, 2007

Well, I guess everyone has the right to change his or her mind. It seems that the chief evangelist for the global warming crusade, Dr. James E. Hansen of NASA, wrote a paper a long time ago saying that Earth was headed into a new ice age.

Many people have tried to remind the world that it wasn’t that long ago that pre-eminent scientists believed that we were not getting warmer but rather we were getting colder. What has recently come out is that Dr. Hansen was part of this crowd.

Can you buy a greener conscience?

Los Angeles Times – September 2, 2007

P.T. Barnum supposedly said that there was a sucker born every minute. Sometimes, when I read about carbon credits, I am not sure who the sucker is – the person buying, the person selling, or the general public for thinking it is helping!

I really don’t like carbon credit schemes.  I have written about them multiple times and most of what I read simply doesn’t make sense and is closer to scam than it is to solution.

In order for credits to be feasible and to be more than a “feel good” gesture, we need solid accounting, accountability, and penalties. We have none of that now and this article makes this painfully clear. We cannot allow credits to be used for minor contributions to a project. The credit must go to the cost of reducing the greenhouse gas. 

Tempest In A Teapot

Investors Business Daily – July 25, 2007

Significant quote:

A private firm’s downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can’t get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

I have been suggesting for quite some time that the first step in a global war on climate change begin in a fairly modest way. Instead of implementing extremely tough sanctions against energy use, we need to invest a relatively small amount of money to better understand our environment.