Hansen’s former boss is a global warming sceptic!

In case you haven’t read it elsewhere, here is a copy of an item on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. It speaks for itself and is chock-a-block full of interesting references and links.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’
January 27, 2009

Posted By Marc Morano – 6:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

  James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic 

Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ 

Gore Faces Scientific Blowback  

Also See: Gore’s Inconvenient Astronaut: NASA Moonwalker Defies Gore’s Claim That Climate Skeptics Believe Moon Landing was ‘Staged’   

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

 

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.”  Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’  &  Gore laments global warming efforts: ‘I’ve failed badly’ – Washington Post – November 11, 2008  ]

 

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

 

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.  [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen  UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]  

 

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

 

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the  research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former  top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

 

 Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released,  Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with  ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ]  In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”   A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.”  More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.  An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.  India Issued a report challenging global warming fears.  International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”  

The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey  & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% — now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]  

 

 The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”

On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.  Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warminga failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.    

What can I say, but “Wow!”?

Vote of no confidence for temperature charts – part 2

An obvious argument I forgot in my first post, Vote of no confidence for temperature charts ……….

No GISS measurements over water

The GISS weather stations are located on land. None of these weather stations measure the temperature on 70% of the earth’s surface which is water!

Who is GISS anyway?

GISS is a part of NASA and stands for Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It makes sense that this is a part of NASA. What DOESN’T make sense is why a space agency is using surface mounted weather stations for evidence of climate change.

j_hansenAnother thing of interest about GISS is who the CEO is – Dr James Hansen, author and speaker with an alarmist approach to the climate change/ global warming argument. It is usual for people who are government employees to keep their political opinions to themselves, or at least to comment anonymously so that it cannot be attributed to the government agency they work for. Dr Hansen is a very vocal exception to this rule.

Government employees are meant to be apolitical. They are supposed to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and give impartial advice regardless of who is in Government.

This is his background copied from the official NASA GISS web page:

Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

He actually says, in the second paragraph, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”

To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them to”. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.

Greenhouse gases found on Mars

Mars from HubbleThe American Thinker yesterday posted a very interesting article, Martian Methane Suggest Solar Induced Global Warming.

Here are some snippets, but go to the article link above to read the whole thing.

A group associated with NASA`s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, using NASA`s Infrared Telescope Facility at Mauna Kea Observatory in Hawaii discovered plumes of methane in the Martian atmosphere over several seasons of observations. Methane is a gas normally produced by biological or volcanic processes-something not believed possible on Mars, which is considered both biologically and geologically dead.

And …

Mars has been warming for some time, and, just as we are told by the global warming alarmists that a warming Earth will result in the release of methane trapped in polar permafrost, so too it seems likely that methane produced via geological activity in the past could be released into the Martian atmosphere.

And ….

If Martian global warming and the release of methane is driven by solar activity rather than human industrial emissions, doesn`t this argue for similar effects on the Earth, which is much closer to the sun than Mars, after all?  Do we take make the enormous investments to reduce our industrial emissions if the cause of the Earth`s warming is outside of our control? But then, we wouldn`t need a worldwide socialist system, now would we!

The evidence for solar induced climate change (both warmer and cooler) is mounting up.

Coral bleaching and ocean acidification

Global warming alarmists make much of how there are greater expanses of corals bleaching and the oceans are becoming more acidic. Besides the fact that man is not causing the Earth to warm by CO2 emissions, it could be that there is nothing to worry about in these two events. One is a survival mechanism and the other is self limiting. 

coral collage

 

Firstly, corals are meant to bleach. Corals get their colour from algae which live on them. Whenever there is a change in the local environment, one set of species of algae ups and leaves and a new set of species of algae which like the new environmental conditions soon takes its place. The period in between the different species of algae taking up residence is what makes the corals look white – coral bleaching.

 

This is a very strong adaptation mechanism and explains in part why corals have been around for so long even though the world climate has changed many times over the millennia.

 

Secondly, the oceans have become a little more acidic over the past few hundred or more years due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean water absorbs a bit of the gases over the top of them. This is one of the ways that oxygen gets in the water so that fish can “breath”. If there is more or less of a certain gas in the air, more or less of that gas will be absorbed by the oceans.

 

However, there is a limit to how much of any gas can be absorbed by the oceans. When water is warmed, you can dissolve a greater concentration of solids in it. Try it with a cold glass of water and a warm glass of water and either sugar or salt.

 

The opposite happens with gases. When the water is cooler it can absorb more gas than when it is warmer. The reason for this opposite effect is due to the physical properties which make a substance a gas, a liquid or a solid – at a certain temperature. If the surrounding temperature drops hugely, CO2 will freeze into ice. At some temperature in between it will become a liquid. On the other hand even metal or rock will become liquid if you apply enough heat.

 

As you heat a liquid, it releases more of the gas that is absorbed in it. This explains why warm Coke or beer goes “flat”.

 

Therefore, there is a limit to how much CO2 can be absorbed in the oceans. It is possible that the oceans are at or close to the level of CO2 they can absorb at the current level of global temperature. If the Earth’s temperature rises a little more, it will be able to absorb less. Therefore the CO2 will stay in the atmosphere, rather than being dissolved in the water of the oceans.

 

This then means there will be a lid on the amount of acid that can be caused by CO2 being absorbed in the ocean water and reacting with other compounds and elements dissolved in the ocean water.

 

 The moral of the story – even if the world is warming by whatever mechanism, the coral reefs will adapt and the degree of ocean acidification will level out. That puts out the lights on two global warming alarms.

US to announce War Against Global Warming?

Reuters has just posted news that US President elect Obama has filled his new administration with AGW proponents.

President-elect Barack Obama‘s new “green dream team” is committed to battling climate change and ready to push for big policy reforms, in stark contrast with the Bush administration, environmental advocates said on Monday.

“If this team can’t advance strong national policy on global warming, then no one can,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, referring to Obama’s picks for the top energy and environment jobs in his administration, which takes office on January 20.

Just great! From the country that brought us the war in IRAQ, the global financial collapse, ENRON and other startling failures, they are now going to inflict on us the perpetuation of the man made CO2 is bad for us myth.

… Karpinski said that with Obama’s “great new green dream team” and more members in the U.S. Congress who support action to curb climate change, a law to limit greenhouse gas emissions is more likely, as is a global agreement to succeed the current phase of the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol.

Or is this just wishful thinking by the AGW proponents?

At least they didn’t mention an emissions trading scheme, or is that what they mean by a “law to limit greenhouse gas emissions”?

Policy to protect the environment is good, but only if it is directed at the real causes and takes action that is going to make a real difference.

UNFCCC working on son of Kyoto Protocol

AFP yesterday reported the UNFCCC has scheduled a program of work to be undertaken during 2009 which will culminate in another global agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012.

THE world’s forum for tackling climate change has agreed on a program to culminate in a treaty to tackle the threat from greenhouse gases.
The 192-member UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has set a schedule of work in 2009 designed to conclude with an historic pact in Copenhagen next December.
Taking effect after 2012, the envisioned deal will set down unprecedented measures for curbing emissions of heat-trapping carbon gases and helping poor countries in the firing line of climate change.

Refer full report at news.com

The UNFCCC website has several documents which came out of the talks in Poznan over 1 -12 December 2008.

The UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol page actually includes the work plan as a document link called FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/L.19. This is very heavy reading. In a nutshell it provides for further study on measuring greenhouse gases, improvements to emissions trading and tying down parties to the Kyoto Protocol to firm and detailed commitments and targets.

This is part of several streams of activity leading up to the next major meeting in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. There are several working group meetings planned at different venues around the world to continue to prepare for the major meeting in Bali mid-year and then Copenhagen.

While I was typing this the UNFCCC updated their website to say the decisions adopted during Poznan will be available there shortly.

This very serious business and it is apparent that considerable resources are being committed to this process.

There is still time for studying and lobbying.

Greenhouse Gases? What rubbish!

Thought for the day –

Why use high faluting words to describe a basic concept? Greenhouse gases are stuff we put into the air that some say shouldn’t be there. So why not just call it, hmmm, let’s see, ummm, I know – pollution!

This word has been around a lot longer than greenhouse gases.

If this doesn’t sound technical enough, why not try atmospheric pollution?