This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Godfather Of Climate Change Calls Obama's Deal "A Fraud, It's Bullshit"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Amid all the self-congratulatory mutual masturbation that has effused since the "historic" signing of a climate 'deal' with no enforcement mechanism, few are better qualified (or more outspoken) to describe the utter farce that COP21 is than former NASA scientist James Hansen, who as The Guardian notes, is considered the father of global awareness of climate change...

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

 

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

 

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

Hansen has been a nagging yet respected voice on climate change since he shot to prominence in the summer of 1988.

The Nasa scientists, who had been analyzing changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s, told a congressional committee that something called the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere was causing global warming with a 99% certainty.

 

A New York Times report of the 1988 testimony includes the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide”, a plea familiar to those who have watched politicians who have traipsed up to the lectern or interviewer’s microphone in Paris over the past two weeks.

After that, things started to get a little difficult for Hansen. He claims the White House altered subsequent testimony, given in 1989, and that Nasa appointed a media overseer who vetted what he said to the press. They held practice press conferences where any suggestion that fossil fuels be reduced was considered political and unscientific, and therefore should not be uttered.

 

“Scientists are trained to be objective,” Hansen says. “I don’t think we should be prevented for talking about the the implications of science.” He retired from Nasa in 2013.

And this is a deal that nearly fell apart on the basis of one - potentially binding - word... (via Politico)

After years of preparation and two weeks of tireless negotiations, after all the speeches and backroom compromising, one misplaced word brought the momentum toward a historic global deal on climate change to a halt Saturday — for at least a few hours.

 

Obama administration lawyers discovered early in the day that the latest draft text had a potentially deal-killing tweak: Deep into the document, in Article 4, was a line declaring that wealthier countries "shall" set economy-wide targets for cutting their greenhouse gas pollution.

 

That may not sound like such a headache-inducing roadblock, but in the world of international climate negotiations, every word counts. In previous drafts, the word "shall" had been "should" — and in the lingo of U.N. climate agreements, "shall" implies legal obligation and "should" does not. That means the word change could have obliged the Obama administration to submit the final deal to the Senate for its approval. And inevitably, the GOP-led chamber would kill it on sight.

 

"When I looked at that, I said, 'We cannot do this and we will not do this,'" Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters afterward. "'And either it changes or President Obama and the United States will not be able to support this agreement.'”

And finally, John Kerry was back at it again today...

Secretary of State John Kerry, fresh off touting a historic global climate deal in Paris, tore into Republican climate change deniers today and said anyone who denies the science will not be President of the United States.

 

“I don’t believe the American people, who predominantly do believe in what is happening... I don’t think they’re gonna accept as a genuine leader someone who doesn’t understand the science of climate change and isn’t willing to do something about it.”

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:06 | 6917895 souljaboy
souljaboy's picture

Somewhere in the world, there is the dumbest former NASA scientist in the world.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:09 | 6917915 38BWD22
38BWD22's picture

 

 

The whole damn thing "Climate Change", "Global Warming" is just complete bullshit.

At least the MAN MADE part.  I am somewhat convinced that there are various cycles at work, and at least one of the cycles shows increasing temperatures.  But, other cycles show decreases...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:11 | 6917929 Manthong
Manthong's picture

What a shill and schmuck.

All you global cooling, er global warming, er climate change suckers, don’t take it from me, take it from these  guys…

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Yes, this is just another big money scam.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:29 | 6917978 Latina Lover
Latina Lover's picture

AGW/climate change is a failed religion masquerading as second rate science, an attempt to create a world wide tax on air to support the  UN and associated parasites.

Notice how the USSA military is exempt from all Carbon quotas, despite being the largest single human created emitter of CO2.

http://www.projectcensored.org/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-p...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:37 | 6918020 mvsjcl
mvsjcl's picture

What worries me is that it appears that those "in the know" like us ZHers are being fed the notion that this whole schmiel about this treaty is a big nothing sandwich, empty words with no enforcement, yadda yadda. But then again, I know that these fuckers in charge NEVER do anything for nothing. It might not be obvious. There may be several layers of subtrifuge. But theres ALWAYS a meaning or goal.

 

And it's never good.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:04 | 6918031 Manthong
Manthong's picture

LL, Correctomundo..

The UN has been looking for a way to become self- sustaining for years and they have been hoping a global AGW tax would be the way.

Algore and his ilk have been looking for a way to be intermediaries and scam more money in the process.

Up you’re f’n chakra, Algore.

And yes MV, there has to be a hook in there somewhere.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:14 | 6918176 MeetTozter
MeetTozter's picture

The COP21 is just a meaningless StrawMan - any meaning in the "agreement" is blown apart by the Corporate Magna Carta triumvirate - TTIP, TTP, TISA.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:33 | 6918261 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

When I see Al Gore living in a cardboard box, then I will start to worry about "climate change".  Until these so called "do gooders" start walking the walk, not just talking the talk, I won't be worrying about this bullshit one iota.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:36 | 6918275 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Well y’know if we all stopped eating meat and killed off all the cattle, hogs, sheep and poultry we could cut so-called greenhouse emissions in half.

Tell that to the liberals the next time they convene for a rubber chicken or cowhide flank steak dinner and love fest.

Feed them radioactive Fuku-fish instead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:41 | 6918303 Latina Lover
Latina Lover's picture

We need to plug all the volcanoes first, LOL.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:22 | 6918501 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

Unfortunately, two bullshitters don't make a right.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 23:46 | 6920217 Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

 

Hansen would know about fraud - he has been found by a German professor/statistician to have fraudlently modified the global raw temperature database maintained by NASA-Goddard to show warming since 1940 where none has existed.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

and

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-nasa-documents-related-global-warming-controversy/

 

The claim that the earth's climate can be change by a tax program to tax and trade carbon in fuel is a complete fraud. 

 

ZH should do some research on Hansen before they post this stuff.

 


Sun, 12/13/2015 - 22:49 | 6920042 SixIsNinE
SixIsNinE's picture

yes Australia is into it also today, say goodbye to meat :

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/from-arnold-schwarzenegger-to-tuyu-the-buf...

from the article :  .... "Raising livestock is responsible for 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, according to the United Nations. This is comparable to the emissions of the entire transport sector. Raising beef is extraordinarily profligate in terms of land and water per kilo of meat produced for the table. "...

Hogwash !

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:19 | 6918211 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

I see an execitive order to make the price of crude be $150 a barrel so alternative energy is profitable. Better yet to get that price by creating a tax (which is administered by Goldman) to target that price. Oh I'm too low? Go for $200. What could go wrong.

Oh, and a mandatory percentage of the obscene profits GS would make should go toward political contributions.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:41 | 6918028 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

By all means, let's reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.  It only fosters photosynthesis.  I mean....what difference does that make at this point anyway!!!!

 

Morons.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:59 | 6918382 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

This is how it all plays out....

Maunder Minimum reduces temps. AGW alarmist crowd will point to this temp decrease as victory against Globull Warming. Meantime, CO2 will have continued to increase, a data point which will be buried by MSM.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:51 | 6918071 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

 

I've searched the Internet extensively for evidence that disputes this graph — http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif — and have only found graphs that confirm it.  Mindful that plants suffocate and die below 150 ppm of atmospheric CO2, it's clear that the planet would be at very dangerous low, were it not for the present spike shown in this chart — http://s10.postimg.org/5fz8g5a3d/CO2_Last_40_Mys.png  Moreover, During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically.  Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm [now over 400 ppm]— still CO2-impoverished. Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason.  "Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. It provides all of the food and most the energy for the human race. Carbon dioxide is a tiny part of the atmosphere, yet it sustains all life on earth. It is NOT a pollutant. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human.” — Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist — http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/co2-climate-facts.html  
Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:15 | 6918186 Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Green Peace

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:36 | 6918279 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

And here's his compelling slide presentation in October:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:10 | 6918443 BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

Could it be that the fossilization of carbon killed the dinosaurs and NOT a giant asteroid? I say put the stuff back in the atmosphere so plants can grow and quit being so fucking retarded.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:08 | 6918432 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Reducing the building blocks for life is the obvious step, considering the eugenics background, and population control desires, of many people behind the so-called Green Movement.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:34 | 6919064 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

[quote]...former NASA scientist James Hansen, who as The Guardian notes, is considered the father of global awareness of climate change... [/quote]

Just like this jerk I would suggest that you turn off yer PC (and every other electric device!) and quit being a hypocrite!

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:25 | 6918519 Reichstag Fire Dept.
Reichstag Fire Dept.'s picture

It's Bush's fault and you're a racist! 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:00 | 6918901 Dugald
Dugald's picture

 

Fit all ruminants with anal plugs and cap all volcanoes!
There, fixed it for ya!

 

 

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:17 | 6917952 snodgrass
snodgrass's picture

These assholes want us to revert to the middle ages. Get an ox cart or a rickshaw and make do. Of course all the 1 percenters will have private jets but who are the serfs to complain?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:31 | 6917991 38BWD22
38BWD22's picture

 

 

Well, maybe if we changed over to ox carts, we would then have them complaining about ox farts...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:51 | 6918073 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

...and he's still 3 sigmas to your right.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:39 | 6918807 The Wedge
The Wedge's picture

Hansen alters ice core data, lowering amount of C02 in the past, because "it just couldn't be". Is that the scientific method? Make the data fit your theories? Ha Ha

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:02 | 6918908 DownWithYogaPants
DownWithYogaPants's picture

If you think Hansen is intelligent then you are about as slow as a person gets while still alive.  I do better science as an engineer than this guy does.  All the "glo-bull" warmers are just spreadsheet scientists  They can run excell to the FEA ( finite element analysis ) and do the same thing accountants do....to wit:  The boss tells em the number he wants and the accountant cooks the books until the desired result is output.  This is about as far away from science as you can get.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:03 | 6917899 wmbz
wmbz's picture
The Godfather Of Climate Change Calls Obama's Deal "A Fraud, It's Bullshit"

 

The whole fucking thing (climate change) is a fraud and complete absolute bullshit!

Always follow the fucking money!

Ask OwlGore!

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:13 | 6917937 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

Yep, the entire gig is actually worse than a farce, it's a fraud! That taxpayers of modern countries pay billions of dollars so our elites can jet themselves and their friends around to their favorite vacation sites (Johannesburg, Kyoto, Rio, Cancun) and wine & dine each other while pretending to save the world from ManBearPig is outright fraud. Every one of these Global Warmists should stand trial for fraud and/or extortion.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:53 | 6918077 XitSam
XitSam's picture

The proles and outer party members for global climate warming change are stupid. I went to youtube to find a video of a UN conference in Mexico where the attendees were signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. But there's shitloads of videos!  Search for 'ban dihydrogen monoxide petition'

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:27 | 6917981 Life of Illusion
Life of Illusion's picture

Always follow the fucking money!

 

yes wmbz you are correct

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_bank

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:13 | 6918171 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

Typical troll behavior by this global warming extremist. That is, take the complaint against you and boomerang it back.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:04 | 6917902 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

CLIMATE CHANGER

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:14 | 6917940 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

We all know where we'd like to stick those clubs, or what to do with them.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:21 | 6917966 curbjob
curbjob's picture

One would think as a Nobel Peace Lauriate,  he'd now the carbon footprint of a cluster bomb ?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:07 | 6917909 gafgroocK
gafgroocK's picture

 

 

 

Guess who is the dumbest fucking President of the United States

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:34 | 6918009 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

But Harvard affirms he was present at their law school, and its prestigious law review affirms he held the title of editor.   No records released and he signed not a single article, but, but that Harvard stamp, and and the crease in pants!   He's clean and articulate.  

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:58 | 6918103 XitSam
XitSam's picture

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American [Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," -- Joe Biden

And drone kills 16 year old American citizens that have committed no crime. -- XitSam

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:28 | 6918525 Reichstag Fire Dept.
Reichstag Fire Dept.'s picture

Mr. DaSurf, is that a trick question? 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:09 | 6917916 Vint Slugs
Vint Slugs's picture

Looks like a case of pot calling the kettle black.  One of the biggest liars about global warming denouncing Obama's "deal" as a fraud.  lol.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:10 | 6917928 38BWD22
38BWD22's picture

 

 

+ 1

I too love it when the Leftist BS-ers squabble, LOL...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:10 | 6917922 stant
stant's picture

Moot point when the nukes go off anyway.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:38 | 6918286 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

When nuclear winter sets in, the few remaining souls will wish there was global warming.....

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:11 | 6917930 kerfuffled
kerfuffled's picture

"climate change" itself is a fraud

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:38 | 6918283 Main_Sequence
Main_Sequence's picture
How the IPCC lies with statistics: Global Warming is a Hoax By Lord Christopher Monckton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I
Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:12 | 6917935 thepigman
thepigman's picture

The best reason NOT to get in an argument about climate change is that even if it is true, they're not going to do anything about it. 

End of story.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:31 | 6917996 jm
jm's picture

They will tax the crap out of Exxon and like companies to fund their cronies who are setting up unprofitable green technologies. It just a form of corporate welfare that flow ultimately to the sponsoring politicians' wallets.

The NY AG issued some decree to set the tone for the shakedown.

Trump save us.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:12 | 6917936 Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

Now you know why they abandoned cleaning up pollution. 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:59 | 6918111 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

What the hell is that supposed to mean??? The whole reason all the alphabet soup regulatory agencies are starting to regulate arcane and far fetched shit (naturally occurring asbestos possibly in concrete aggregate, parts per trillion chlorinated byproducts, lawn mower emissions, etc...) now in the US is because all the classic emissions sources and physical clean ups are for the most part done, or remediated orders of magnitude faster naturally than ever predicted, or were finished quickly when new technology appeared.

They HAVE to think up more shit as a "problem" or they don't have a job! I've worked in the industry for 25 years. Remember when MTBE was the hot new pollution issue? I watched guys at my work comment "the farm is saved!" when it was mandated because it was known that it passed THROUGH the walls of recently mandated double wall fiberglass tanks.

It got banned, then between its water solubility and the fact that bacteria adapted to eat it way faster than was thought possible the whole issue faded off the radar.

I used to work some massive chlorinated solvent sites, shit with groundwater wells you had to wear a respirator to take the lid off and sample. One in particular had a huge treatment system built, with 14,000 pound activated carbon strippers. It cost about $250,000 a quarter to sample it. Hydrogen releasing compound came out, which enables anaerobic bacteria to efficiently utilize chlorinated solvents for food. I was by the site a few years later, and everything was gone. I asked what happened, where did all the shit go?!?! It had HRC injected, it's near non detect, got their "no further action" letter.

You need to look long and hard at whatever becomes the latest government/media boogeyman, remember, they're not doing their job these days to protect us, they're doing it to farm us and stay employed and grow their business...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:12 | 6917938 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Where is ZH expert Flakmeister to set things straight for us?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:30 | 6917994 38BWD22
38BWD22's picture

 

 

S/he will be along before long I would guess...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:17 | 6917949 slammin_dude
slammin_dude's picture

One Fraud calling another fraud a Fraud....oh the sweet irony

 

and it's HYDROCARBON not "fossil fuel" geesus fuck ppl are imbiciles

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:31 | 6918538 Reichstag Fire Dept.
Reichstag Fire Dept.'s picture

"We're not running out of oil, we're running into it." ~ F. William Engdahl 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:17 | 6917954 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Yesterday it was sunny and warm. Today it is snowing. The climate changed. Where do I send my check to make the sun come back........

Mon, 12/14/2015 - 01:11 | 6920439 The Magus
The Magus's picture

Moron. Dont confuse weather with climate.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:25 | 6917957 Rhal
Rhal's picture

In 1988 James Hansen predicted a 10 foot sea level rise over 20, no- 40 years. So far we see 2.5 in: no acceleration. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-...

His model is broken, why is anyone listening to him?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/1988_hansen20.gif?w=7...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:28 | 6917988 The Magus
The Magus's picture

Hansen did not predict a 10 foot rise in 40 years in 1988. At the time the sea level modeling was in its infancy. Hansen and his fellow scientists have only recently formulated sea level rise using models in which they are confident.

Actually it has been expressed by many independent analysts that ALL his predictions have been accurate.

The 2.5" you refer to, is the start of an exponential function (and we ALL know how well ZH morons understand the exponential function).

:)

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:03 | 6918130 stilletto
stilletto's picture

Hansen is a notorious bullshitter. He makes wild claims that arlways found to be fraudulant. He's a laughing stock.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:11 | 6918447 The Magus
The Magus's picture

Nah. YOU ARE

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:41 | 6918815 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

says alias Flakzuki

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:30 | 6917995 Stroke
Stroke's picture

Didn't this guy create the muppets?......Just sayin'

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:07 | 6918148 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

6 year old crap posts from a crap blog frequented by whackadoos and people in denial about standard text book physics on radiative transfer older than they are...

Helluva comeback...

\facepalm

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:47 | 6918327 Latina Lover
Latina Lover's picture

Is this the best that you can do?  <Yawn> 

I'll bet at some point you are or were sucking off the AGW teet.  Go find a real job, and leave the rest of us alone.

Even if AGW was real, the last organizations that I would trust to solve it would be the UN, EU and USSA.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:05 | 6918417 Johnny Horscaulk
Johnny Horscaulk's picture

Like all good scientists you rely on ad hominem - is that right?

presumptuous twat, maybe if you were not such an unremitting cunt you'd actually convince someone that all the co2 has indeed potentially contributed to trapping heat.

And from there its a matter of comparing and contrasting non-action if agw is wrong versus the risks inherent to non-action if the basic premise is right.

Surely non scientist traders can understand hedging.

Meanwhile, keep pretending that a single agw model was anything even close to fully accounting for solar activity including euv output, electromagnetic changes, and *increased* output in recent decades.

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/spaceship-earth/solar-a...
http://m.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

Of course, using 'natural variance' selectively and presupposing record antarctic ice simply *must* be due to co2 warming is part and parcel of getting grants, eh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-model...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 19:34 | 6918849 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

Flak,

 

IN all honesty why don't you reveal yourself.  You are so full of yourself that you talk down to this community and call everyone who has doubts about AGW names.  You are so smart and intelligent and we are all so stupid.  Your authority should not be annonymous but public so you can hang by the rope you braided.  All the ZH'ers here that you disdain don't have a dog in this fight but you come armed with an enormous archive of the latest AGW research swill.

Who are you?   

Chicken!

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:50 | 6917975 Deus Irate
Deus Irate's picture

Hansen is the consummate elitist misanthrope. A cursory examination shows that raising the price of oil -- or taxing it to get the same result -- to "save the planet" hurts the poor disproportionately and does absolutely nothing to reduce it's use. Kills the poor to be sure and has led to a new phrase in our vernacular: energy poverty. Why do these people hate the poor so much?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:52 | 6918076 The Magus
The Magus's picture

Hansen is not a misanthrope. He will not stand for politicians who lie.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:11 | 6918159 Deus Irate
Deus Irate's picture

With all due respect, I think you need to read what Hansen has said and written for yourself, rather than rely on what he is reported to have said -- then you will see that you are in error. And be careful of your sources, much of what you will find available today has been "adjusted" to hide his declining integrity.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:16 | 6918191 The Magus
The Magus's picture

So fill me in, did he say that he is a misanthrope?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:03 | 6918132 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

If crony capitalism hadn't institutionalized the "Oil Age" by making sure that the true cost of oil would never be paid at the pump, we'd have been beyond oil a long time ago, mindful that the following is from nearly a decade ago:

http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=11520 

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:51 | 6918197 Deus Irate
Deus Irate's picture

You don't seriously expect me to take that link as an authoritative source, do you? Sorry, but it never ceases to amaze me what folks hold up as proof these days... Am I missing your point here?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:14 | 6918465 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Oil is heavily subsidized, and had we been paying its real cost at the pump all this time, investment in alternatives would have proceeded apace, putting us decades ahead of where we are today.

Or do you honestly believe that a century of war based largely on oil has been paid for by consumers, rather than taxpayers and money-printers.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:37 | 6918567 Deus Irate
Deus Irate's picture

I am not so sure about "heavily" but yes, oil has been and still is subsidised, but not always. There are few industries extant that are not subsidised in some form or another, but I fail to see how it matters beyond a narrow interest. I think oil's successes have more to do with easy profits than some kind of insidious plot. Alternative energy just does not have the same potential, yet. If it did we would see much more than just venture-socialists and corrupt beaurocrats behind wind and solar etc.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:03 | 6918622 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

"Alternative energy just does not have the same potential, yet."

That's precisely my point, i.e., if consumers had had to pay the real cost of oil at the pump all this time, "yet" would have already arrived.  

It's what a free market does.

If only we had one.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:00 | 6918391 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

They don't hate just the poor, they hate all non-elites.  The poor are just the easiest to dispose of.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:25 | 6917976 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Cue the Hedgetards...

How could they resist the red meat of Obama and Climate Change?

Hansen can knowingly say we are fucked, and we truly are...

Time to start planning the for the sea walls to save whatever civiliazation we want to keep that has an elevation less than 150 ft above sea level....

Hope your kids learn to think of jellyfish as seafood...

Now back to your whackadoo conspriacy theories along with the morons that are in denial about the basics of radiative transfer...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:28 | 6917987 The Pope
The Pope's picture

all 'caused' by WHAT?, in your expert opinion?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:03 | 6918128 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The dumping of 500 Gigatonnes of C02 into the atmosphere would be a start...

Now run along my little troll...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:11 | 6918162 stilletto
stilletto's picture

CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. It is 10 times less efficient at absorbing radiation than water vapour, it absorbs incoming (cooling the earth) radiation to a greater extant than outgoing and it is all in miniscule amounts. Then CO2  is less than .04% of the atmosphere so not only does it have near zero greenhouse effect there is bugger all of it. If you study physics and chemistry you'll see that CO2 cant warm the earth - its not effective enough and there's sod all of it. Climate Change is natural and millions of years old and not driven by CO2 - its driven by the suns varying output and the earths varying orbit and spin axis. Read some physics!

Tue, 12/15/2015 - 10:16 | 6925390 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Are you this ignorant naturally, do you simply lie to your self to make yourself feel better?

Making shit up was never a good debating tactic...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:11 | 6918163 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

You mad bro?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:06 | 6918411 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

Yes, about spending his entire childhood receiving wedgies, having his lunch money stolen, and being stuffed in his locker.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:32 | 6918004 souljaboy
souljaboy's picture

Well, it is Sunday. Faith is the belief in things unseen. Glad you made it to church today.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:56 | 6918093 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I can forgive them not understanding the science, they simply lack the knowledge to meaningfully parse the debate in rational terms, so they're prone to believe any propaganda that aligns with their chosen ideological stance, but it's the "those scientists are in it for the money" types, who can somehow completely ignore the motives of the billionaires on the other end of this debate, that really make me laugh.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:03 | 6918133 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:20 | 6918491 malek
malek's picture

Why are you two even posting here if all you can present is "nobody get's it except me" and ad hominems?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:15 | 6918185 Haole
Haole's picture

Your hypocrisy (and abject ignorance apparently) is so stunning that no doubt it's flown right over your 1300cc brain cavity and protruding orbital ridges...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:17 | 6918203 two beers
two beers's picture

Remember, these clowns blame the GFC on poor immigrant homebuyers, and not on the pure and noble banks that knowingly sold the bogus mortgages. It's always the victim's fault - the rich and powerful are blameless.

Ideology obviates logic.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:07 | 6918426 Meat Hammer
Meat Hammer's picture

I can forgive them not understanding the science, they simply lack the knowledge to meaningfully parse the debate in rational terms, so they're prone to believe any propaganda that aligns with their chosen ideological stance

I agree.  Progressives are retards.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:21 | 6918175 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Ah, there you are Flak.  To repeat what I said above (and I am totally open to your proving otherwise):

I've searched the Internet extensively for evidence that disputes this graph — http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif — and have only found graphs that confirm it.  Mindful that plants suffocate and die below 150 ppm of atmospheric CO2, it's clear that CO2 would be at very dangerous lows, were it not for the present spike shown in this chart — http://s10.postimg.org/5fz8g5a3d/CO2_Last_40_Mys.png  Moreover, During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically.  Today, CO2 concentrations are barely at 380 ppm [now over 400 ppm]— still CO2-impoverished. Many scientists strongly believe that we should be trying to produce more CO2, not less. And for good reason.  "Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. It provides all of the food and most the energy for the human race. Carbon dioxide is a tiny part of the atmosphere, yet it sustains all life on earth. It is NOT a pollutant. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human.” — Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist — http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/co2-climate-facts.html  

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:27 | 6918239 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

+1

I guess we should thank him for trolling these GW and CC threads because we all get to read some excellent factually based comments that blow his ridiculous theories all to hell.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:35 | 6918254 Haole
Haole's picture

Indeed and with much of the info available lately from real scientists using real data it is so easy to confirm the utter fraud and lies these specimens personify.

I wager that Flakmeister will call you greater than or equal to 5 names to prove you wrong.  Anyone else?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:05 | 6918922 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

And while we're waiting for Flak's reply, let us note the following:

"Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/276...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:14 | 6918182 Tallest Skil
Tallest Skil's picture

So when the next 15 years are some of the coolest on record, will you self-immolate to pretend the world was ever warming?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:34 | 6918256 Niall Of The Ni...
Niall Of The Nine Hostages's picture

If Wall Street thought for a second Manhattan would sink beneath the waves, they'd have taken steps to leave fossil fuels in the ground long before now. A few well-placed hydrogen bombs dropped over the Arabian Peninsula would have done the trick.

As it is, Riyadh has their orders to pump like mad so they can tax oil like mad, and see to it the benefits of cheap oil go to Wall Street and not to people who work for a living and believe in the God of Israel.

Hansen is an old man who just found out he's not as important as he thought. You'd think he'd be more grateful for the government pension and the teaching job he uses to top it up. Most white men who outlive their usefulness to the important are lucky just to get sufficient funds to drink themselves to death.

Mon, 12/14/2015 - 11:21 | 6921439 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

Flake that's just about the stupidest post we've ever seen from you.  Go take a f*cking statistics class.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:37 | 6918015 two hoots
two hoots's picture

There were many attempts at flight before the Wright Bros.  Men donned wings and fell to their death or just wasted resources.  Gotta start somewhere and it is usually begins with silly talk, so climate talk du jour has started.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:43 | 6918035 gmak
gmak's picture

Hello pot. This is the kettle. You're black with soot.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:50 | 6918049 falak pema
falak pema's picture

So what he is saying  basically is :

1° Carbon Imprint of Man is the CAuse of climate change.

2° Given that we are not doing enough.

3° We should ban coal and keep Oil and Gas as much as possible underground and reforest and reinject CO2 into ground if we are serious about keeping temperature rise below the 2°C catastrophic limit. DECARBONIZE maximum.

If that is his view he is right and the Paris deal does not ensure all that is required. As Monbiot is pointing out like a lot of others.

Conclusion : Paris is a start but its not the BLUEPRINT for solutions as it has not put a Cap on Fossil usage...CARBON TAX is the way to go!

Damn right!

But it was shot down in PAris by Obama who was scared of GOP congressional VETO. Even the 100 Billion annual aid to third world countries is not mainstream but hidden in an annexe to avoid Congressional ire.

The UGLY guys defending fossil fuels continued usage in this deal are : USA, CHina, The Petromonarchies, Venzezuela and India...having said that total suppression of fossil is not imaginable even in fast track BEFORE 2050, based on current momentum. It would be impossible to feed the population on less KW/capita from renewables only, that is clear. We need fossils until renewables are grid compatible massively  (storage/flux) and usable totally in industry.

But PAris is a step. and NAture is the next one that will inevitably impose Carbon taxes bigtime in 10 years time.

Politicians have to be deep in shit before they act. That's democracy's rule #1.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:05 | 6918143 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Like trying to argue with junkies about the positive benefits of rehab; completely pointless, as is this toothless 'agreement' of a circle jerk.

All so people can resume their somnambular use of gas-guzzling dipshitmobiles, heat their entire McMansion to keep the 10% they occupy cozy, and keep up with the latest doings of transgender former decathletes.

Maybe they're waiting so that nuke plants will be not only more palatable, but unavoidably built by goober-subsidized no-bidders.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:58 | 6918659 trader1
trader1's picture

Obama was not scared of GOP but Uncle Warren who stands to lose a profitable fossil fuel transportation biz.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:46 | 6918053 cheech_wizard
cheech_wizard's picture

>Hansen has been a nagging yet respected voice on climate change

Respected? by whom exactly?

But another paper, the U.K. Guardian, would get some genuine, and deeply disturbing, news about Hansen. In an interview he granted to Ed Pilkington of the U.K. Guardian, Hansen, sounding more Stalinist than scientist,called for certain oil executives to be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity" for their denial of global warming.

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Standard Disclaimer: Lead deficiency is one of the biggest problems facing humanity today. You can help by ensuring people like James Hansen gets their preventative vaccination against this horrible disease. Remember, just one shot can ensure a brighter, happier, healthy future for all of humanity.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:47 | 6918056 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Actually increasing taxes to a central authority increases emissions,  Typically in the Transport sector.

The data from Ireland is very clear on this.

Until relatively recently it was a peasant economy ( albeit tied into the British Usury System)

If we look at recent data transport emissions are increasing despite massive carbon tax rises.

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:47 | 6918058 gregga777
gregga777's picture

Hansen is either an incompetent scientist or a fraud. His climate model contains numerous mathematical errors (I.e., partial derivatives of DEPENDENT variables—giving non-sense results) and errors in model architecture. Externally driven albedo (EDA) is by far the most significant climate influence. For details see:

"Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics
A mistake in the climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.

Short and Sweet
Many scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory because of “basic physics”, or rather its application to climate, the basic climate model. Other scientists are skeptical, because of the considerable contrary empirical evidence.

Dating back to 1896, the basic climate model contains serious architectural errors. Keeping the physics but fixing the architecture, and using modern climate data, shows that future warming due to carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.

Increasing carbon dioxide “thickens the blanket”, reducing the heat radiated to space by carbon dioxide. In reality, the blocked heat mainly just reroutes out to space by being radiated from water vapor instead, all in the upper atmosphere. In the current climate models, however, that blocked heat travels down to the Earth’s surface where it is treated like extra sunlight, and instead less heat is radiated to space from water vapor.

The belief in the danger of increasing carbon dioxide is wholly due to a poor modeling assumption made over a century ago. This error presumably went unnoticed because critics focused on the values of the parameter values in the model (such as how much heat is trapped by increasing carbon dioxide) rather than on how the model combines them to estimate future warming.

The Error
The physicists got it right. The climate scientists got it wrong.

In 1896 when sensitivity to carbon dioxide was first estimated, climate scientists could estimate how much the world would warm if absorbed sunlight increased. But while they could estimate how much heat was blocked from leaving Earth by increasing carbon dioxide, they couldn’t figure out how much surface warming that would cause.

Here is the poor modeling assumption responsible for the alarm over carbon dioxide: the climate scientists assumed that blocking some heat to space by increasing carbon dioxide causes the same surface warming as if absorbed sunlight increased by the same amount, instead. Their basic climate model calculates the warming due to extra carbon dioxide precisely as if it were extra absorbed sunlight.

But while this assumption was convenient and made a sensitivity estimate possible in 1896, it is obviously wrong. Extra absorbed sunlight changes the total heat radiated by the Earth, but extra carbon dioxide does not*—because total outflow is just equal to the inflow (once steady state resumes). Increasing carbon dioxide merely redistributes the emissions between the various emitters to space: water vapor, carbon dioxide, the surface, cloud tops, etc.

Ever since 1896, climate scientists have been convincing themselves that a decrease in heat outflow is equivalent to a matching increase in heat inflow, as assumed in their basic model. While it is equivalent with respect to the amount of heat on Earth, it is not equivalent in terms of how the outgoing heat is distributed between the various emitters—which is what matters, because surface warming is determined only by the change in emissions from the surface (a warmer surface emits more to space).

The large computerized climate models are tailored** to give the same answer as the basic climate model. While there are obviously some differences in the way they treat extra carbon dioxide and extra absorbed sunlight, essentially they treat them the same—in both cases they reduce the heat radiated to space by water vapor (“water vapor amplification” of the surface warming), but it has been clear from the empirical evidence since before 2000 that this was not happening.

Documents
Example Tweets:
CO2 alarm entirely due to bad modeling assumption from 1896. Overestimated 5 to 10 times. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Climate Fear caused by nineteeth century accounting error — new findings show. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
New Climate model says man not to blame! http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

Media Release (1 page) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/media-release-evans-cl...
Essays (all share the same introduction):
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics (2,500 words, includes politics) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay1-misapplied.pdf
Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference (1,350 words, dam analogy, short version) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay2-little-differen...
Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference (2,400 words, dam analogy, long version) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay3-little-differen...

Summary (13 pages). http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/summary-of-basic-clima...

Synopsis (24 pages, last update 28 Nov 2015). http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/synopsis-of-basic-clim...

Spreadsheet (Excel, 250 KB). Contains the alternative basic climate model, as applied to recent decades. Also contains the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) model, and a computation of the Planck sensitivity/feedback.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/alternative-model.xlsx

Media
Miranda Devine http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-e...

UK Express
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-di...

Blog Posts
This material is being introduced in a series of blog posts on Joanne's blog. Those with a climate science background will likely find the posts tagged in red of more interest.

New Science 1: Introduction to the Series. The conventional basic climate model is the application of “basic physics” to climate. The idea that “it’s the physics” makes the CO2 theory impregnable in the minds of the establishment. Despite the numerous mismatches between theory and climate observations to date, many climate scientists remain firm in their belief in the danger of carbon dioxide essentially because of this model, rather than because of huge opaque computer models. The basic model ignited concern about carbon dioxide; without it we probably wouldn’t be too worried.
New Science 2: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — Simple. Presenting the conventional basic climate model, in its simplest configuration—the only input is the change in carbon dioxide level, and there are no feedbacks. Computes the no-feedbacks equilibrium climate sensitivity as 1.2 °C.
New Science 3: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — In Full. Presenting the conventional basic climate model, in full—multiple inputs, and feedbacks. Computes the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) as 2.5 °C.
New Science 4: Error 1: Partial Derivatives. The basic model relies heavily on partial derivatives. A partial derivative is the ratio of the changes in two variables, when everything apart from those two variables is held constant. But in climate everything depends on everything, so it is not possible to hold everything constant except for only two variables, as required for a partial derivative to exist. The partial derivatives are not empirically verifiable, so employing them in a climate model incurs unknown approximations.
New Science 5: Error 2: Omitting Feedbacks that are not Temperature-Dependent. In the conventional model every “feedback” (something that affects what caused it) is in response to surface warming—directly dependent on the surface temperature, but not on the climate drivers or on other feedbacks. Feedbacks rule the climate. Due to its architecture, if there feedbacks to climate drivers exist (such as the rerouting feedback in post 7 below) the model omits them.
New Science 6: How the Greenhouse Effect Works. Heat radiated to space (outgoing longwave radiation, or OLR) is mostly emitted by four disparate emissions layers: the water vapor emissions layer, the CO2 emissions layer, cloud tops, and the surface. The hotter a layer, the more it emits. The so-called greenhouse effect exists because OLR is emitted from an emission layer high in the atmosphere, where it is cold, rather than from the surface, where it is warm. The total emissions must equal the heat absorbed from the Sun and has to be emitted somehow, so the surface is much warmer than it would be if most of the OLR wasn’t emitted from high in the cold atmosphere.
New Science 7: The Rerouting Feedback. We propose the “rerouting feedback”, in which OLR blocked by an increasing CO2 concentration is mostly just rerouted to space via emission from water vapor and clouds tops instead. Occurring high in the atmosphere, this feedback to increasing CO2 is omitted from the conventional basic climate model, which can only contain feedbacks in response to surface warming. Increasing CO2 warms the upper troposphere, because less OLR is emitted from there by CO2 molecules. This heats neighboring molecules, including water vapor molecules in the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL), so more OLR is emitted by water vapor molecules. Because the WVEL emits more it must be at a higher average temperature. The average height of the WVEL declines, as the upper troposphere is more stable and convection is less vigorous. Humidity builds up and clouds condense at lower levels, suggesting the average height of the cloud top emission layer would also decline, and more OLR is emitted from cloud tops.
New Science 8: Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth.The Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to a solid isothermal surface, so it cannot be literally applied to Earth. However it can effectively be applied to the Earth as seen from space if the Earth's temperature is considered to be its “radiating temperature”, defined simply as the temperature that satisfies the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with the OLR and emissivity (~0.995) of the Earth.
New Science 9: Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same. The response of any climate model to increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is its “solar response”. Due to its architecture, the conventional basic climate model applies its solar response to the radiation imbalance caused by any influence on climate, even a radiation imbalance due to increased CO2—one size fits all. However increased ASR causes increased OLR, whereas increased CO2 does not change the total OLR (when steady state resumes, ignoring minor surface albedo feedbacks). Also, increased ASR mainly adds energy to the surface, but increased CO2 blocks energy leaving Earth from the upper atmosphere. So it is physically unrealistic to apply the solar response to the influence of extra CO2.
New Science 10: Externally-Driven Albedo (EDA). Albedo is the fraction of incoming radiation reflected back out to space without heating the Earth, about 30%. Externally-driven albedo (EDA) is the albedo other than that due to feedback in response to surface warming—presumably it is caused by external influences. Here we show that EDA has at least twice as much influence on surface warming, and maybe much more than that, as the direct effect of variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI).
New Science 11: An Alternative Modeling Strategy. The road-map for building an alternative model without the problems of the conventional basic climate model. A paradigm shift from summing forcings to summing warmings is proposed. Each climate influence has its own response (sensitivity and feedbacks), instead of all using the solar response as in the conventional basic model. Radiation must still balance, so this constraint is applied to the sum-of-warmings model. An OLR model based on physical parameters of emission layers estimates the change in OLR, leaving only the CO2 response parameter as an unknown when the sum-of-warmings model is joined to the OLR model to form the alternative model. Observations over a period allow the CO2 response parameter to be estimated, and thus the sensitivity to CO2.
New Science 12: Modeling the Thermal Inertia of the Earth. The relationship between absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and the radiating temperature is a low pass filter. This is at the heart of the solar response in the sum-of-warmings model within the alternative model.
New Science 13: The Sum-of-Warmings Model. The sum-of-warmings model independently calculates the surface warming due to each climate driver (such as increasing absorbed solar radiation, or increasing carbon dioxide), then adds them. This allows each climate driver to have its own specific response, including feedbacks.
New Science 14: Emission Layer Parameters. Basic information about the layers that emit OLR—such as how much OLR comes from each emission layer, and the heights of the emissions layers.
New Science 15: The OLR Model. The OLR model estimates how much the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space changes with changes to the heights of the emission layers, the lapse rate, the surface temperature, the cloud fraction, and the CO2 concentration.
New Science 16: The Alternative Basic Climate Model. The sum-of-warmings model (post 13) and the OLR model (post 15) are joined together to form the alternative basic climate model.
New Science 17: Solving the Mystery of the Missing “Hotspot”. In the conventional models (including the GCMs), surface warming for any reason causes the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL) to ascend, creating “the hotspot”. In the alternative model, surface warming and the solar response both cause the WVEL to ascend, while the CO2 response (how the planet reacts to increased CO2) causes the WVEL to descend—which is consistent with the rerouting feedback. The last few decades saw surface warming, increased ASR, and increased CO2, while the empirical data from the radiosondes and the better satellite analysis showed that the WVEL did not ascend and may have descended. The conventional models (including the GCMs) are wrong—they apply the solar response to both increased ASR and increased CO2, so they say all the forces on the WVEL were causing it to ascend. The alternative model resolves the data—there were opposing forces acting on the WVEL, the hotspot is indeed missing, and the CO2 response was stronger than the solar response over the last few decades.
New Science 18: Calculating the ECS Using the Alternative Model. Fitting the data to the alternative model, we conclude that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the surface warming per doubling of the CO2 concentration, might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C. Most likely, less than 20% of the global warming since 1970 is due to increasing carbon dioxide. The CO2 response is less than a third as strong as the solar response—both measured in degrees of surface warming per unit of radiation imbalance.
New Science 19: Comments on Conventional versus Alternative. General comments tying together some of the main ideas of the series to date.
New Science 19b: Synopsis. Released for download.
New Science 20: Introduction. The series of blog posts continues on from the critique of climate model architecture that showed that carbon dioxide caused less than 20% of the recent global warming. This post begins the solar part of the series, where we search for what did cause the warming.
New Science 21: The Notch. The empirical transfer function from total solar irradiance (TSI) to surface temperature has a notch at 11 years, the frequency of the sunspots. The extra radiation at every sunspot peak is not producing any discernible warming at the Earth's surface, where it should be detectable. Therefore a countervailing cooling influence is present at precisely the times when TSI peaks, is synchronized to the Sun, and is as strong as the direct heating effect of TSI. Furthermore, the transfer function is flat for low frequencies, suggesting that there is exists an indirect solar sensitivity that is ~14 times greater than the direct heating effect of TSI.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-clima...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-2-the-conventional-basic-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-3-the-conventional-basic-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-4-error-1-partial-derivatives/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-5-error-2-model-architectur...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-6-how-the-greenhouse-effect...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-7-rerouting-feedback-in-cli...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-8-applying-the-stefan-boltz...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imb...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-10-whatever-controls-clouds...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-11-an-alternative-modeling-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-12-how-do-we-model-the-ther...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-13-the-start-of-a-new-archi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-14-emission-layers-which-pi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-15-modeling-outgoing-radiat...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-17-solving-the-mystery-of-t...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitiv...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19-the-invisible-nameless-m...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19b-a-synopsis/
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/synopsis-of-basic-clim...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-20-its-not-co2-so-what-is-t...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-21-the-mysterious-notch-in-...

Related blog posts:

Lucia has a Bad Day with Partial Derivatives. Over at the Blackboard, Lucia thought David had made some errors with partial derivatives in post 3, and was talking about GCMs in post 4. This post is a reply, showing her how to do partial differentiation, and correcting her misconception.
Lucia has a Bad Week on Partial Derivatives. Over at the Blackboard, Lucia dug a deeper hole, this time focusing on the existence of the partial derivatives in the basic model. This post is a reply, showing that her alternative development was mere notational trickery. Having read carefully through Lucia‘s two posts and their comments, we are still waiting for Lucia to find any mistakes in our posts above or even made any informed criticism of them.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-day-with-partial-deriva...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-week-on-partial-derivat...

* Ignoring the minor surface albedo changes due to surface warming.

** The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are bottom up models that try to produce observable macro trends by modelling masses of minor details. GCMs are effectively tailored to produce the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the conventional basic climate model, in three steps:

The conventional basic climate model estimates the sensitivity to carbon dioxide as ~2.5 °C (the equilbrium climate sensitivity, or ECS). But this is an overestimate: fixing the faulty architecture shows it is less than 0.5 °C.
A sensitivity of ~2.5 °C very roughly accounts for observed warming since 1910. To believers in the conventional basic climate model, this implies that increasing carbon dioxide alone can explain 20th century warming.
So GCMs use increasing carbon dioxide as the dominant driver to reproduce 20th century warming. GCMs that do not succeed in this task are not published (see p. 32).

Externally-driven albedo involving the Sun is the main cause of warming, but it is omitted from all current climate models.

© Science Speak 2015"

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:09 | 6918156 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Disingenuous bullshit  from people that think that scientists don't understand the concept of partial derivatives...

Where do these whackjobs come from??? And who are they fooling?

Aside from morons like you, nobody...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:16 | 6918192 Tallest Skil
Tallest Skil's picture

Wow you sure showed him up by proving all of his information wrong using a variety of citations and...

What's that? Just a post that says "You're wrong" without any evidence whatsoever, flying in the face of every piece of scientific knowledge we have accumulated for the last 150 years?

How about that.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:41 | 6918301 Bazza McKenzie
Bazza McKenzie's picture

Ah, another bowing and scraping member of the religion of global warming, which has as much to do with science as the Khardashians.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:43 | 6918313 Lumberjack
Lumberjack's picture

You must be the spam dog at WB7's place.

Tue, 12/15/2015 - 19:36 | 6928063 Rhal
Rhal's picture

He brought data. You bring insults. If you can't refute with science stay home.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:53 | 6918080 Joe Tierney
Joe Tierney's picture

That bullshit "scientist" is just pissed-off because a utopian UN dictatorship didn't emerge from the confab.....

 

He and his ilk don't give a damn about the planet - what they crave is power and control and the "climate change" hoax is their best bet for grabbing it.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:06 | 6918146 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You're an ignorant asshole and you deserve everything you're bringing upon yourselves as well as the sins you'll be visiting on your children.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:17 | 6918198 Niall Of The Ni...
Niall Of The Nine Hostages's picture

Speak for yourself.

Alternatively, say that again, only to the hajji about to slice your head off with a scimitar.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:19 | 6918997 Haole
Haole's picture

If there was a prize for hypocrisy you would be the undefeated heavyweight champ and the sad thing is you're completely oblivious to the fact because being willfully oblivious to facts is what people like you do best.  Good luck with that, and your little collapsing religion of fraud...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 14:56 | 6918090 Junerberno
Junerberno's picture

Despite the rabble in here, Hansen is a fine scientist doing excellent science.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:08 | 6918153 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Doing fine science will never sway this crowd of troglodytic microcephaloids.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:50 | 6918341 Deus Irate
Deus Irate's picture

Will the following sway you? Or is the archetypal "troglodytic microcephaloid" merely projecting, again?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/11/why-basic-global-warming-hypoth...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:42 | 6918305 arbwhore
arbwhore's picture

Just another weekend at ZeroHedge.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:47 | 6918333 BigRedRider
BigRedRider's picture

Hansen doing excellent science?

One down vote for you, dude.  If I could, I would have cast the whole deck of down votes on your narrow shoulders.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:05 | 6918135 AriusArmenian
AriusArmenian's picture

Here's one report of the several times that James Hansen was caught 'tricking' the data. We now know that the IPCC has been tricking the data for over a decade. The Russians have reported that the IPCC cherry picked data from Siberia to skew results. Your thinking is driven by belief, not science.

“Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire or Where Global Warming is Really Coming From”

Life Extension News  Volume 12, No. 1, Feb. 2009

http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=2086

According to a report in Environment & Climate News,(1) James Hansen, astronomer and director of NASA’s Goddard  Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has been caught doctoring temperature data from California “to make a long-term cooling trend look like a warming trend.” The article explains that the temperature history (as reported by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for Santa Rosa, California) was examined by California meteorologist Anthony Watts and found to show a long-term decline, especially since the 1930’s. Watts then examined the temperature history for the same town as reported by GISS; the GISS report was completely different, reporting a long-term increase in Santa Rosa temperature. “USHCN reports a decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reports a temperature increase of one-half a degree.”(1)

The article goes on to explain that the USHCN measures temperature by “taking daily readings from an immobile temperature station,” while GISS collects the USHCN temperature readings and then subjects them to adjustments (using methods which Hansen will not reveal), allegedly to correct for artificial influences such as land-use changes. The urban heat island effect (as Santa Rosa’s population increased from slightly more than 10,000 in 1905 to about 158,000 today) would have been expected to result in warmer temperatures (unrelated to global influences) and, hence, to adjust for the urban heat island effect would require the long-term temperature record should be adjusted downward, not upward. Yet, GISS is adjusting the raw temperature data upward instead of downward.

In the article on the facing page,(2) it described how “[i]n 2007, statistical scientists showed GISS had been artificially inflating U.S. temperatures by 0.15 degrees Celsius since the year 2000.” Furthermore, “[i]n 2008 statistical scientists showed GISS had falsely reported October 2008 was the warmest October on record when, in fact, it was a quite normal temperature month.” NASA later admitted that the “Warmest October” claim had been wrong.(3)

 

References

(1) Taylor JM. GISS, Hansen Caught Doctoring More Data. Environment & Climate News Feb. 2009

(2) Taylor JM. GISS, Hansen Frequently Report False Warming. Environment & Climate News Feb. 2009

(3) ‘Warmest October’ Claim Was Wrong, NASA Admits. Environment & Climate News Jan. 2009

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:09 | 6918154 Niall Of The Ni...
Niall Of The Nine Hostages's picture

If our masters thought for a minute climate change would affect them in any meaningful way, seeing to it Saudi oil stayed in the ground for the next century would be easy with a few well-placed hydrogen bombs, solving the climate change and the terrorism problem with one stroke.

Unfortunately, limiting ourselves to use only of those fossil fuels available in civilized nations would allow too many of the rewards to go to white North Americans---and Russians---and too few to go to Wall Street. Far better in our masters' view to keep Riyadh pumping like mad, tax the hell out of developed-world motorists and businesses without the clout to get tax exemptions, and pocket the difference.

To the extent AGW is happening at all, its effects will be manageable in every country well-developed enough to build a halfway decent dike around coastal cities. Wall Street is not going to be suffered to sink beneath the waves, no matter how much it deserves to.

The only countries that would face genuine existential crises in Hansen's nightmare scenarios already suffered from overpopulation, low average IQs, Muslim majorities, or all three. Securing the civilized worlds borders and letting natural selection do its job seems to be by far the best course of action.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:12 | 6918165 uncle_disgusting
uncle_disgusting's picture

Suspicious0bservers channel on YouTube has a good series on the Climate Change

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:12 | 6918168 MEFOBILLS
MEFOBILLS's picture

Putin..

"We've shown that you can guarantee economic development and protect the enviroment at the same time"

See a little less than 2 minutes into his speach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4R28THutKI

Even if there isn't anthropogenic gloabal warming, it makes sense to not waste precious long-chain carbon molecules.  Save them for future humanity so your children can use them for plastics and medicine; specialty lubrications, and other high value items. 

As always, it boils down to the money system.  For example, housing:  Since the banker takes so much usury on a house loan, then it is impossible to build highly insulated or highly massive,  high quality "forever" homes.

In other words, it should take very little energy to heat and cool homes if they are built right.  But, since the money supply is all "bank credit" and this credit comes into being from keyboard entries, then the bankster is taking a huge unearned cut for himself.

A large up-front loan on housing ends up paying usury to the banker for some 15 years before the principle starts declining.  In the U.S a 150K home may cost half a million over a 30 year loan.  How much quality could be built in for half a million dollars?  How much energy conservation could be built in?

Trains are highly efficient because their steel wheels are low friction.  Long distance trucking represents fuel waste due to lost efficiencies - especially as long haul trucks are subsidized by taxes on cars.  Long haul trucking is a rent scheme that consumes fuel. 

New plant and equipment COULD have higher depreciation schedules if it met efficiency targets.  

But, since banksters are in charge, they are not going to come up with REAL solutions.  Instead, they are using the global warming agenda as a scheme for their one world order desires.   Digging into pyramidal one world order we find illuminists, and digging a little deeper we find debt spreading money masters.

Money is law, not debt.  Their schemes require lying and spreading hypnosis.

When a forest is seen as so many board feet of lumber, where trees must be converted to prices, to then pay ever expanding debts - then the money system itself is responsible for global warming, and hence predatory debt money system will prevent good solutions from coming forth.

It is supreme irony that private money masters are using global warming scheme for their nefarious ends, when much of global warming blame should be laid at their feet.

Kabalistic money masters are messianic, luciferian, and psychopathic.  They fund their grip on humanities testicles with the debt money system.

www.sovereignmoney.eu

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:17 | 6918196 Robert Vesco
Robert Vesco's picture

The true Godfather of the Global Waming hoax was Canadian Billionaire Maurice Strong.  He just died a few weeks ago.  

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:30 | 6919044 bamawatson
bamawatson's picture

howdy bob; you are one of my favorite all time criminals; a modern day billie sol estes

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:17 | 6918201 roadhazard
roadhazard's picture

I knew that when they said it was, "non binding". Fucking joke.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:28 | 6918243 red1chief
red1chief's picture

Who's the fraud, Hansen? Can we read some more of your emails?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:28 | 6918245 red1chief
red1chief's picture

Who's the fraud, Hansen? Can we read some more of your emails?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:41 | 6918293 BigRedRider
BigRedRider's picture

"But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board."

 

Greenhouse gases ain't taxed now...so what are you talking about, Hansen?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:43 | 6918309 peu peu moxi
peu peu moxi's picture
The Godfather Of Climate Change

 

Maurice  Strong

http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/newest-developments-blog---breaking-news--...

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 15:56 | 6918368 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Wow.

Climate change is a way to get more money from "you" to "them."

End of Story

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:00 | 6918385 orangegeek
orangegeek's picture

Before: Was called Spring, Summer, Winter, Fall = Seasons

 

After:  Now called Climate Change.

 

Difference?  Increased taxes

 

Conclusion:  shitbag goobermint is selling higher taxes equating to saving the planet - we need an assassination soon folks!!!

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:03 | 6918404 cinderalle
cinderalle's picture

well climate change global warming or whatever you want to call this Al Gore thing is a fraud and they know it, that is why it really doesnt matter. We who know about chemtrails know what causes climate change, if there is something like that

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:05 | 6918414 Raul44
Raul44's picture

Truth about climate propaganda and intentions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0TUYJnhF44

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:12 | 6918450 Dre4dwolf
Dre4dwolf's picture

TLDR: His entire argument = Carbon Taxes on Fossil Fuels or GTFO.

Man-Made climate change / Global Warming is a SCAM meant to suck money out of consumers and put it into the pockets of fraudsters.

The global temperature is regulated by the SUN and the SUN ONLY.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:39 | 6918809 surf@jm
surf@jm's picture

Not only that.....one spewing volcanoe ruins their whole day......And brings back the Polar Bears.....And then they knash their teeth, and go from global warming to climate change.....

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:17 | 6918472 In.Sip.ient
In.Sip.ient's picture

Let's DE-spin these headlines;

 

1) Politicians from 151 countires converge on Paris,

to talk about the weather...

 

2) Politicians declare a 2C degree limit,

on the weather...

 

And y'all thought King Canute was the only nutbar

egomaniac who thinks he can command the waves???

 

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:29 | 6918530 FrankHerbert
FrankHerbert's picture

it's all about the TAXES. dumbass progressives will vote for this shit, too. pathetic.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:29 | 6918534 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

The real fraud in all of this is James Hansen himself.  He's become a multi-millionaire pushing this garbage.

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:31 | 6918541 Mini-Me
Mini-Me's picture

The tree-huggers, do-gooders and one-worlders all seem to tacitly acknowledge that taxing fossil fuels would result in a diminishing use of the fuel source.  They also tax the shit out of things like cigarettes and alcohol in order to reduce smoking and drinking. You get less of what you tax.  Simple.

Yet these same geniuses cannot admit that taxing economic activity in general will also reduce economic well-being.  They've convinced themselves that they are better suited at re-distributing income, when the reality is that they are destroying wealth.  The developed world is living on borrowed time.

Combined with reckless borrowing and money-printing, the a-hole politicians and bankers have brought us to the precipice.  And they have the nerve to be puzzled as to why the world economy is in free-fall.  

Time to hit the reset button on this shit show.  

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 16:38 | 6918573 Reichstag Fire Dept.
Reichstag Fire Dept.'s picture

I'm presently in Managua, Nicaragua. Just talked to a Geologist that supports F. William Engdahl's hypothesis that we are NOT running out of oil at all.

 I just left working in Oilfield Completions Services and have heard murmuring but no real evidence....left and went to the Goldfields due to low oil prices killing development in Northern Canada. 

Anyone have anything to add to this?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:36 | 6918798 surf@jm
surf@jm's picture

So this guy is upset, that his fellow travelling communists didn`t go far enough, in a global takeover?......

Thats a real shame...boooo hooooo........

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:36 | 6918800 peu peu moxi
peu peu moxi's picture

bUNch law winners and diners caught in a avalanche .

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 17:49 | 6918852 Berspankme
Berspankme's picture

Shocked I'll tell ya. You mean that skinny prick was just bloviating again? Fuck Obama, write an article when he tells the truth

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:13 | 6918963 Dickweed Wang
Dickweed Wang's picture

The whole issue of man-caused "global warming" is total BULLSHIT and is nothing more than a last gasp money grab by the power elite in the world.  When a body like the IPCC does a study on "global warming" and decides in ADVANCE to exclude any causes of climate change OTHER THAN those related to man-kind's activities you should know right off the bat that something really stinks with the "science" going on. 

The other give away to the whole thing being a scam is the efforts some governments are making to shut up those scientists that are voicing opposing views to the "settled science" of man-caused global warming, including proposals to arrest and imprison those called "climate change deniers". 

Take a look at the testimony in the link below of one scientist that decided to do her own research after she initially bought into the "consensus" of group think on this issue and decided that the way the "science" was being conducted was totally politicized  . . . . meaning what is going on is basically junk science.

http://www.corbettreport.com/mp4/currytestimony.mp4

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 18:51 | 6919152 Vin
Vin's picture

John Kerry?  You mean Kohn, right?

Sun, 12/13/2015 - 19:10 | 6919219 oooBooo
oooBooo's picture

Look up Hansen's 1980s predictions that got this whole thing started. Compare with reality.

Even after the data is adjusted to show as much warming as they possibly can shove into it the line is below the prediction Hansen published as stopping CO2 emissions. So if we are better than Hansen's best case prediction, what's the problem?

Besides global warming caused by CO2 being a fraud that is.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!