Hansen, NASA: Warming hasn't declined

[skierinvermont]

No one disagrees that HadCRUT is probably too cool in the arctic regions. I don't think the argument's about that. Honestly I don't care what the argument's about, I just want to see the 6z GFS show a HECS.

But as the divergence graph shows, some years have had a massive difference like Winter 07-08. And the divergence has been increasing a lot (maybe as Hansen got desperate after the arrests) so it does seem a bit anomalous.

So if you agree that HadCRUT is too cool in the arctic (let's say we infill the arctic with UAH on HadCRUT) then we get HadCRUT in close agreement with GISS.

Not surprising given they use pretty much the same raw data.

The divergence between GISS and UAH in the arctic is small to non-existent compared to the overall trend of 1C since the mid 90s and when factoring in the rapid warming on UAH from 93-97 before ORH's graph starts.

[skierinvermont]

It's actually sort of funny that people pick the arctic as the place to criticize GISS considering it is the one place the two of them agree on most closely the last 15 years. It's the rest of the earth they disagree on.

GISS red lines UAH blue, since 1993:

[nzucker]

So if you agree that HadCRUT is too cool in the arctic (let's say we infill the arctic with UAH on HadCRUT) then we get HadCRUT in close agreement with GISS.

Not surprising given they use pretty much the same raw data.

The divergence between GISS and UAH in the arctic is small to non-existent compared to the overall trend of 1C since the mid 90s and when factoring in the rapid warming on UAH from 93-97 before ORH's graph starts.

The surface databases definitely agree more for sure...I think people are just highlighting the Arctic on GISS because of Hansen's Siberia error in October 2008, the fact that much of it is extrapolated, and recent years showing more divergence. They weren't tracking this far apart in the Arctic earlier on...but yes, I certainly agree with your conclusion that a lot of it is just a fundamental difference btwn lower troposphere and surface warming that we can't explain with any certainty.

[Hambone]

I talked to a big pro AGWer tonight at length over several beers tonight....some of you may know who he is...but he is as disgusted as many of us "deniers" are about the politics involved...he said 90% of the emails he gets are "pro AGW climate change emails" and nothing else...they have nothing to with what he is trying to study. The blackballing in this "business" has become absolutely horrible.

This has nothing to with who is right and who is wrong, its about the ethics of science. The money is all in "climate science"..he said all of the openings are about climate change....and not actual weather. The politics have taken it too far.

I've been saying this for years. Follow the money and that is where the science will take you.

[easternsnowman]

Hansen is an example of why government should be downsized!

[iceicebyebye]

The problem with the AGW theory lies in its extremity. I would have no issue with scientists saying, "Hey we've seen some warming since 1850 partly due to humans, we're expecting a bit more in the next century, we should be careful about emissions and try to reduce pollution when we can." But the extreme predictions are why the public is losing interest..."all the polar bears are dying" when the population is at record numbers, "British children will never see snow again" when they've just had record snowfalls and cold, "the Earth will warm 4C by 2060" when we've barely warmed since 1998, etc. These lies cause the environmental movement to lose credibility and allow skeptics to repeatedly mock the climate scientists when they inevitably bust. This will hurt the movement to have a cleaner earth in the long range. What we need is for the environmentalists to go back to a 1960s/1970s style approach of fixing local problems like inefficient insulation in older homes, polluted rivers like the Hudson, excessive littering and lack of bottle bills in certain states, lack of recycling availability and information in rural areas, etc. Then we'll get a head start on global warming anyway while people feel they are doing something concrete to protect their home. I, for one, am much more concerned about the amount of trash on the ground at our beautiful country home in the picturesque Pocono Mountains than what the climate will be like in 100 years.

on the whole the projections are simply a reflection of expected impacts and conditions from BAU emissions paths. many of the projections lead to rather uncomfortable outcomes, which may shake paradigms or preferred ways of thinking and acting, so the label of "extreme" is often assigned as a way of attacking the message, since it is a threat to the mental model that many have constructed within their lives. really, many of the projected impacts are absolutely possible as we proceed along BAU emissions paths.

i would say your last statement is much more representative of the challenge with the "AGW situation" than your first statement. most humans would fall into the category of caring less about the climate in 2110 than minding the aesthetic in their backyard, hence the struggle to collectively move to a path that will lead to future outcomes other than those projected by BAU. the "here and now", and the pressing energy needs of 7B+ humans will keep us on BAU paths until further notice...

[BethesdaWX]

on the whole the projections are simply a reflection of expected impacts and conditions from BAU emissions paths. many of the projections lead to rather uncomfortable outcomes, which may shake paradigms or preferred ways of thinking and acting, so the label of "extreme" is often assigned as a way of attacking the message, since it is a threat to the mental model that many have constructed within their lives. really, many of the projected impacts are absolutely possible as we proceed along BAU emissions paths.

i would say your last statement is much more representative of the challenge with the "AGW situation" than your first statement. most humans would fall into the category of caring less about the climate in 2110 than minding the aesthetic in their backyard, hence the struggle to collectively move to a path that will lead to future outcomes other than those projected by BAU. the "here and now", and the pressing energy needs of 7B+ humans will keep us on BAU paths until further notice...

Seriously, what was your old username on Easternwx?

[ORH_wxman]

My eyes were opened last night about how the funding is almost all climate change and its hurting the funding for stuff like tornadoes and hurricanes, snowstorms, etc. That is an absolute embarrassment...climate change is important and should be studied....but not at the expense of actual weather phenomenon we KNOW is a big deal for us. So much of the government grant money is now toward climate change it now hurting the other fields that need to be studied more than some "speculation" about us burning up and dying in sea level rise. Its a joke.

There is much more need for funding stuff that affects us day to day rather than speculation about global temps and from an agency that still doesn't really admit that ocean cycles affect temps.

[BethesdaWX]

My eyes were opened last night about how the funding is almost all climate change and its hurting the funding for stuff like tornadoes and hurricanes, snowstorms, etc. That is an absolute embarrassment...climate change is important and should be studied....but not at the expense of actual weather phenomenon we KNOW is a big deal for us. So much of the government grant money is now toward climate change it now hurting the other fields that need to be studied more than some "speculation" about us burning up and dying in sea level rise. Its a joke.

There is much more need for funding stuff that affects us day to day rather than speculation about global temps and from an agency that still doesn't really admit that ocean cycles affect temps.

Bingo! Ding Ding Ding

[easternsnowman]

My eyes were opened last night about how the funding is almost all climate change and its hurting the funding for stuff like tornadoes and hurricanes, snowstorms, etc. That is an absolute embarrassment...climate change is important and should be studied....but not at the expense of actual weather phenomenon we KNOW is a big deal for us. So much of the government grant money is now toward climate change it now hurting the other fields that need to be studied more than some "speculation" about us burning up and dying in sea level rise. Its a joke.

There is much more need for funding stuff that affects us day to day rather than speculation about global temps and from an agency that still doesn't really admit that ocean cycles affect temps.

Great point! Climate change is all about politics and people like Hansen are going to find ways to justify their theories to keep their jobs and money flowing in their direction.

[salbers]

Great point! Climate change is all about politics and people like Hansen are going to find ways to justify their theories to keep their jobs and money flowing in their direction.

Yes, though the people that argue that the "Science isn't settled" should welcome more research in this area. If there's any chance that climate change is caused by humans it's important for us to know. It's a big deal if the Earth is changed for thousands of years, and silly for us to be potentially blind to it.

By the way I actually make my living more on weather research rather than climate.

[easternsnowman]

Yes, though the people that argue that the "Science isn't settled" should welcome more research in this area. If there's any chance that climate change is caused by humans it's important for us to know. It's a big deal if the Earth is changed for thousands of years, and silly for us to be potentially blind to it.

By the way I actually make my living more on weather research rather than climate.

Yes I agree. Scientists on both sides of this issue should investigate and also the sun's effect on all of this which some will say plays a much larger role than humans.

[Hambone]

Yes, though the people that argue that the "Science isn't settled" should welcome more research in this area. If there's any chance that climate change is caused by humans it's important for us to know. It's a big deal if the Earth is changed for thousands of years, and silly for us to be potentially blind to it.

By the way I actually make my living more on weather research rather than climate.

That's great. What area of climate research do you dabble in?

[Hambone]

Skierinvermont, how old are you and what do you do, other than ski? I'm 57 and the CEO of a $200mm financial services business with tangential interests in climate change. It's not the major part of our business, but it has an impact in terms of business viability, building codes, tax issues.

How are you vested in what you're proselytizing? How much skin have you got in the game?

[Hambone]

In general terms it's largely described on this website:

http://www.esrl.noaa...newable_energy/

Do you forsee a time in the 5 to 10 year time frame when those energy sources become economically feasible without subsidy?

[salbers]

Speaking personally about non-carbon energy sources in general it's a complex question, especially since things like oil have had subsidies. In certain niches renewables are economically viable now. WIth subsidy it can be accelerated, just as with many things. I disagree somewhat with the ethanol subsidy, except if it is a bridge to improved types of biofuels.

Solar energy, nuclear fusion, geothermal are things I'm interested in. Perhaps small-scale nuclear fission can be made cheaper and safer?

Oil is getting a bit scarce and prices are going up, so that has some of the same effect as a subsidy. Conservation is actually a low hanging fruit, even if it isn't as technologically interesting.

[beneficii]

Skierinvermont, how old are you and what do you do, other than ski? I'm 57 and the CEO of a $200mm financial services business with tangential interests in climate change. It's not the major part of our business, but it has an impact in terms of business viability, building codes, tax issues.

How are you vested in what you're proselytizing? How much skin have you got in the game?

This is completely irrelevant to the point being discussed and is off-topic.

[Hambone]

This is completely irrelevant to the point being discussed and is off-topic.

You are completely wrong... let me explain.

It's the very point about AGW. If you earn your living thru AGW research, then your opinions are compromised. No one is paying for hedged results when the funding is given to proposals written to prove AGW.

We are increasingly being asked to make multi million dollar decisions that can succeed or fail depending on which way AGW goes. I want to know that the science is "real" not influenced by where a paycheck comes from or which party one supports.

If we're forced into some form of false/ineffective/feel good AGW remediation then the economy of our nation will lose a significant % of GDP. My business and thousands other will suffer.

If you have no stake in AGW other than your political beliefs, your opinion is also compromised. Because you have "no skin in the game" and you have nothing to lose if you're wrong. Hey if I was in college right now and the hot chicks were holding up carbon kills signs, I'd be all over the AGW movement. So what if it's wrong, I got nothing invested and I'm getting laid in the meantime.

You know this mortgage crisis we're in? The vast majority of problem loans were people with lousy credit, limited equity and nothing to lose. The "sand states" are all non-recourse. Walk away from your home and you can't be chased for a deficiency.

Human nature is the same in each deal only on a different scale.

So yeah, I do want to know where people who are so adamant about AGW are coming from. It makes all the difference in the world as to credibility. Btw, I do not trust "scientists" anymore than anyone else in society. Man is flawed, one succeeds when they identify and mitigate the flaws.

[salbers]

In the big picture I tend to agree that science has its down side, leading to technology that has in turn harmed the Earth. We should be glad that some scientists now are learning about things that can help the Earth. While scientists do not have a monopoly on knowledge there are a lot of them that have some important insights about climate that should be more widely discussed. Ultimately it's the data and insights that should be discussed, regardless of where they come from.

Helping the environment is probably good for the long term economy, certainly the value of investing in the future should be apparent.

I agree some types of investment are questionable, yet on balance there should probably be more of it. Otherwise the U.S. will be left behind in the clean energy global economy.

[Hambone]

In the big picture I tend to agree that science has its down side, leading to technology that has in turn harmed the Earth. We should be glad that some scientists now are learning about things that can help the Earth. While scientists do not have a monopoly on knowledge there are a lot of them that have some important insights about climate that should be more widely discussed. Ultimately it's the data and insights that should be discussed, regardless of where they come from.

Helping the environment is probably good for the long term economy, certainly the value of investing in the future should be apparent.

I agree some types of investment are questionable, yet on balance there should probably be more of it. Otherwise the U.S. will be left behind in the clean energy global economy.

There's the rub. I thought Obama missed a huge opportunity with the stimulus package. A huge grant should have been carved out to fund a "Manhattan Project" of energy. Not to continue with wind, solar panels etc, but to develop new technologies that will in fact be economically feasible.

We not only need "clean energy" we need "cheap energy". For our economy to prosper and grow we have to replace fossil with something as cheap or cheaper. Wind and solar are no where near that today and I find little evidence that it will get there on large meaningful scale projects anytime soon.

A friend of mine is Assistant Secretary of Labor. They held a huge celebration when the old Toyota plant in Fremont California reopened and created 1200 jobs to build green cars. The project is heavily government subsidized. Unfortunately, the old plant was economically viable until the recent crash and had 12000 jobs.

1200 subsidized jobs replacing 12000 jobs is no cause for celebration, we should be outraged, but that's the government we have.

[salbers]

That's a good question about how many green jobs are actually being created. There are some success stories if you look for them I would imagine.

The trend is that wind and solar costs are heading towards parity with fossil fuels, and are already there in some situations. I've suggested other technologies above. Which ones do you favor? I agree a Manhattan style project would be a good idea.

Why is it that wind turbines are often purchased from other countries? Good for those countries, and not too good for U.S. competitiveness.

[Hambone]

That's a good question about how many green jobs are actually being created. There are some success stories if you look for them I would imagine.

The trend is that wind and solar costs are heading towards parity with fossil fuels, and are already there in some situations. I've suggested other technologies above. Which ones do you favor? I agree a Manhattan style project would be a good idea.

Why is it that wind turbines are often purchased from other countries? Good for those countries, and not too good for U.S. competitiveness.

The green jobs by and large are subsidized and that's bad.

Here's the economic reality. Unless we get to a sustained 3% GDP growth we can't get back to prerecession employment levels for the forseeable future.

At 3% GDP going forward it takes until 2015 to return to pre recession employment levels. That's not unemployment levels, just raw number of jobs in the economy.

We aren't there yet. anything that steals from GDP going forward (AGW?) could throw us into a prolonged (10 years? decades? long) underemployment market.

Now economics is no more reliable a science than is climate, But there's less money corruption.

[salbers]

Well lots of interesting factors and challenges affect economics. I would add to the mix the developing scarcity of oil. That's going to have some impact with the rising prices and is another reason to invest in alternatives.

Why is oil subsidized - are jobs being messed up there? I think the subsidies are generally just to help get things started, then they will in time do well on their own. Judiciously applied we owe some of our current wealth to past subsidies I would imagine.

What about the trade deficit if U.S. firms buy wind turbines from Europe or even China? How about the trade deficit if hybrid cars are purchased from Japan?

Also we have to be careful of economic measuring standards, as they have a tendency to under represent the value of natural resources and the environment.

Do banks and Wall Street have less money corruption than climate science?

Might you address my question about what should be done instead with energy technologies?

[Msalgado]

The green jobs by and large are subsidized and that's bad.

Here's the economic reality. Unless we get to a sustained 3% GDP growth we can't get back to prerecession employment levels for the forseeable future.

At 3% GDP going forward it takes until 2015 to return to pre recession employment levels. That's not unemployment levels, just raw number of jobs in the economy.

We aren't there yet. anything that steals from GDP going forward (AGW?) could throw us into a prolonged (10 years? decades? long) underemployment market.

Now economics is no more reliable a science than is climate, But there's less money corruption.

Really? You really want to stick with this?

Economic decisions are not governed by academic economists actually researching and you should know that very well considering your field. Economic policy is determined by people such as yourself.

In any event, renewable energy resources are subsidized but so is everything petroleum based. You can go from costs that are never passed onto the oil consumer (Military presence in the Persian Gulf in order to protect our supply of oil is a huge one that is NEVER discussed yet is a form of subsidizing oil).

China is sinking a great deal of money into renewable energy and their not doing it to get the warm tree hugging fuzzies. They're doing it because they know that its going to make them a ton of money in the future and they're right. Oil consumption is not going to be coming down anytime soon, and be extremely wary of the time when China and India come anywhere near our per capita usage of energy because when that day comes you'll want to make sure you've been investing in renewable energy.

[Hambone]

Well lots of interesting factors and challenges affect economics. I would add to the mix the developing scarcity of oil. That's going to have some impact with the rising prices and is another reason to invest in alternatives.

Why is oil subsidized - are jobs being messed up there? I think the subsidies are generally just to help get things started, then they will in time do well on their own. Judiciously applied we owe some of our current wealth to past subsidies I would imagine.

What about the trade deficit if U.S. firms buy wind turbines from Europe or even China? How about the trade deficit if hybrid cars are purchased from Japan?

Also we have to be careful of economic measuring standards, as they have a tendency to under represent the value of natural resources and the environment.

Do banks and Wall Street have less money corruption than climate science?

Might you address my question about what should be done instead with energy technologies?

The banks and wall street firms that participated in this disaster had no "skin in the game". Years ago Wall Street Investment banks were "all in" on everything they sold. They held part of every investment and the "partners" were personally vested in the performance of the firm. If their strategies failed, they all went bust. That's "skin".

The brokers etc who put these CDOs etc together made their money up front (like agw researchers) and had no personal liaability for future failure. That's wrong. There has to be accountability for everything. Dodd Frank does not address that basic issue.

Of course Freddie and Fannie led the charge for this and as the largest holders of mortgages in the world they were market makers and are the true cause behind the crisis.

Let me ask you, if you were investing your retirement savings would you put it all in solar and wind energy? I wouldn't. Then why are we spending any money at all on technologies that can't be progged to be economically feasible in our lifetimes?

I invest in "can't lose" investments. We take nothing for chance. If we can't prove that it's a viable deal we don't go in. That's a free market economy. We deal with private capital, real money, not taxpayer money that congress spends like they were drunken sailors.

If government money is going to be spent, and I don't like them spending it, it should follow programs with potential economic viabilty, not shopworn technologies that appeal to the greenies, but will never produce a ROI that makes sense.

[salbers]

I've mentioned other options beyond wind and solar, so one might want to invest in all of them. The payoff might be longer term, so I'm unsure what time horizon I'd want to invest in for retirement. There's also the short-term strategy of investing in oil if it becomes scarce and prices rise. Kind of counterintuitive I suppose.That's maybe why the government should do the "wise" long term investing vs some individuals who just want to get shorter term riches off of the system.

The EROI of fossil fuels is going down and alternatives are going up over time.

The government is well suited to take part in risky investments, as sometimes risk is needed to have at least some things pan out later. Going to the moon was risky, for example.

So you agree with my list of things to invest in (post #46)? What is your list, unless you want China and Europe to do all the wise investing?

[Hambone]

Really? You really want to stick with this?

I'm talking about the "science of economics" so yes I will stick with and defend that statement.

Economic decisions are not governed by academic economists actually researching and you should know that very well considering your field. Economic policy is determined by people such as yourself.

Economic policy is determined by congress, the fed and the administration. Actually, monetary policy is determined by the fed and fiscal policy is determined by the administration with congress.

In any event, renewable energy resources are subsidized but so is everything petroleum based. You can go from costs that are never passed onto the oil consumer (Military presence in the Persian Gulf in order to protect our supply of oil is a huge one that is NEVER discussed yet is a form of subsidizing oil).

Your statement is disingenuous and reveals your political bias. Oil exploration is subsidized through tax credits, as it should be as it is in our strategic and economic interest to have ready access to large amounts of oil. The military presence in the middle east serves a strategic interest as well, though the moonbats like to claim it's "all about the oil". If that was the case why aren't we raping Iraq and Kuwait?

China is sinking a great deal of money into renewable energy and their not doing it to get the warm tree hugging fuzzies. They're doing it because they know that its going to make them a ton of money in the future and they're right. Oil consumption is not going to be coming down anytime soon, and be extremely wary of the time when China and India come anywhere near our per capita usage of energy because when that day comes you'll want to make sure you've been investing in renewable energy.

China is far from a "capitalist nation" they prop up their currency and subsidize many of their industries... particularly energy sciences.

That said they have the largest coal reserves on earth and will dramatically increase their reliance on coal burning for energy production through the next 40 years. In amounts so great, that regardless of what we do, we can never offset their contribution of carbon to the atmosphere.

[Hambone]

Clean coal, clean oil shales/sands, straight nuke are all economically viable. If we're concerned about CO2 emissions let's develop technologies to retain it and sink it back into the planet.

Straight nuke is huge. We should be licensing a new plant every week, right now. We should have a goal of 100% electric production from nukes within 20 years.

Redirect LNG to cars instead of power. Improve the efficiency of home energy systems and conservation. Boston is one huge waste of energy. Just visit any apt building in Brighton Allston.

There's many different technologies that can make sense.

Long term returns are dicey at best. many things can happen between today and 20 years from now.

Electric cars crack me up! Where does everyone think the electricity comes from? It's the least efficient way to heat a home in the Northeast, why would it make sense to power a car?

[salbers]

China is also bigger in wind energy than the U.S. I agree the increased fossil fuel demand globally is a big deal, and will help drive up the price of fossil fuels (oil and eventually coal will go up). We will thus need the alternatives that will become relatively cheaper.

[salbers]

Clean coal, clean oil shales/sands, straight nuke are all economically viable. If we're concerned about CO2 emissions let's develop technologies to retain them and sink them back into the planet.

Straight nuke is huge. We should be licensing a new plant every week, right now.

Redirect LNG to cars instead of power. Improve the efficiency of home energy systems and conservation. Boston is one huge waste of energy. Just visit any apt building in Brighton Allston.

I agree mostly about straight nukes. However small-scale nuclear may become safer and fairly cheap, easy to implement on a municipal scale.

Maybe clean coal, though there seem to be issues with getting the sequestration going. Oil shales/sands take lots of energy and water resources, so the EROI seems too low and thus not too clean.

I also like biochar, and other farming and land use practices to help sequester carbon.

LNG and efficiency sound good, particularly in the shorter term.