What bothers me most regarding the scientific support for the Hansen hypothesis, and there are, with time, more and more inconsistencies between the hypothesis and the experimental record, is this NCDC graph discussed in Global and Planetary Change 100, 51-69, Jan 2013, that Jem has repeatedly posted for us. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008 The graph shows that at least some portion of the CO2 concentration is cyclical and correlated to temperature. (Anthro-generated CO2 is not cyclical with the same period.) The NCDC data shows that CO2 concentration lags, rather than leads, the temperature. (Temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent.) The correlation between temperature and CO2 change is obviously quite good! The small cyclical changes in CO2, shown in the graph, are superimposed onto a much larger background concentration of atmospheric CO2. Is it possible that the large increase in CO2 that occurred over the past century could have been responsible for the temperature rise observed for the same period, as claimed by those who adhere to the Hansen hypothesis? Probably not. I'd like to be able to continue to throw small bones to those brave adherents to Hansen's hypothesis, and say that the jury is still out, but I can not. It seems that the jury has returned with the verdict. When it was discovered that temperature led CO2 concentration in ice cores it was asserted that while that may be, it must certainly be true that CO2 concentration leads temperature in the modern era because we know CO2 is greenhouse gas, mankind has added huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, the Earth's surface temperature is rising, and that rise is strongly correlated to rising CO2. But alas. Just as in the ice cores, temperature in the modern era also insists on either leading CO2 or acting independent of it. The NCDC phase data shows temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree correlated with CO2 changes of a few ppm. The long term data from the late 19th century on shows, again, a correlation of a few tenths of degrees in temperature rise, but instead with a far larger (40%) increase in CO2. The only way this can occur is if temperature is largely independent of CO2 concentration! Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but apparently a very ineffective one. Almost negligible in that role it would seem! The final nail has been driven into the Hansen hypothesis coffin. We are experiencing temperature swings due to as yet uncertain origins, but we can at least rule out CO2 rise as the cause, since temperature and CO2 are clearly acting independent of each other except for the small temperature dependence of CO2 noted in the NCDC graph. What is occurring are small temperature dependent changes in CO2 concentration simultaneously with much larger changes in CO2 concentration not driven by temperature and not significantly affecting the temperature. Some other factor, is increasing CO2 concentration. It could be anthropogenic, and very likely is. Despite a large increase in CO2, suspiciously near our estimates of how much CO2 we thoughtlessly dump into our atmosphere each year, the green house properties of CO2 are so weak as to make only an inconsequential difference in our planets surface temperature; thus CO2 may continue to rise even though the temperature has stopped rising over the most recent 17 years. Whatever is driving temperature up is either apparently pausing for a breather or preparing to reverse course. The phase relationship shown by the NCDC graph is not new information. It was known as far back as at least 1990 and was reported by this study published in Nature. Nature 343, 709 - 714 (22 February 1990) in which it is stated "The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months." It would be a mistake to press forward with an expensive carbon credits schemes unless these can be justified on some basis other than the "Hansen Hypothesis". The phase analysis and the Hansen Hypothesis can not both be right. One or the other is wrong.
Melting of glaciers caused by human activity has soared in the past 20 years, a study has shown. Human influence is now the strongest driver of glacier melting, which has been occurring since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the mid-19th century, it is claimed. Between 1851 and 2010, only a quarter of glacial mass loss was due to human-induced climate change, scientists calculated. But during the last two decades of that period the human contribution rose to two thirds. Lead researcher Dr Ben Barzeion, from the University of Innsbruck in Austria, said: "Typically, it takes glaciers decades or centuries to adjust to climate changes. "In the 19th and first half of 20th century we observed that glacier mass loss attributable to human activity is hardly noticeable but since then has steadily increased. "While we keep factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions unchanged, we are able to modify land use changes and greenhouse gas emissions in our models. In our data we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic contribution to glacier mass loss." The researchers, whose findings appear in the journal Science, used climate computer simulations to map glacier changes everywhere in the world outside Antarctica. A global glacier database called the Randolph Glacier Inventory made the study possible. The scientists reconstructed the area and volume of each glacier in 1851. Two different simulations then predicted how those glaciers might have retreated since. One only included natural factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions. The other also incorporated human influences such as changes in land use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Maybe the world's airlines could do a lot to offset global warming by having planes that fly over equatorial regions spray a light mist of water as they fly. Just maybe this will cause extra clouds to form cooling the planet ? Any views ?
I hope so. Next week I'm flying a private jet back and forth to Maine. Plan on burning around 9,000 ponds of Jet fuel round trip. Has your head exploded yet? LOL
Any chance you could do laps around NYC with a banner trailing from the plane that reads "Is Co2 a greenhouse gas?"
Humpy, these statements such as : "...Melting of glaciers caused by human activity has soared in the past 20 years, a study has shown. Human influence is now the strongest driver of glacier melting, which has been occurring since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the mid-19th century, it is claimed." all depend for their validity on the Hansen hypothesis being true. But fortunately for us a growing body of research since 1990 shows the Hansen hypothesis to be false. The Earth's temperature is very insensitive to changes in CO2 concentration and something else is driving the temperature and climate changes we experience. Recently, for example, it was discovered that undersea volcanic action was responsible for melting in the Antarctic ice cap. " (And of course it is known that Greenland was GREEN long before the age of industrialization. It is simply wrong to dismiss the natural variation of long-term climate. If the data supported the Hansen hypothesis, we should indeed be very concerned about dire predictions based on models. The hypothesis is not correct, however, so none of these models can be relied upon. They all fit past temperature data beautifully however! We probably have many more years of research needed before we gain even a good, let alone a very good, understanding of the natural, or man made, factors affecting our climate. What's very clear now is that the early assumptions about CO2 being an important green house gas are wrong. CO2 has physical properties that make it a green house gas (transparent to visible light but partially opaque to infrared) but as the data shows, it is ineffective in its greenhouse gas role. On the other hand, there is no question that CO2 is a critical mediator of plant growth, and plants are essential to animal life. We had better start being more attentive to what we are doing to our biosphere.
Let me add a note of caution here. In my post above I concentrated on the simplest explanation for the NCDC data, viz., CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas, and therefore temperature appears independent of CO2 concentration. ( I am a believer in Occam's razor: the simplest explanation that accords with the facts is nearly always the correct one.) We must consider however that it could be that CO2 is not quite so ineffective by itself, but that changes in the major greenhouse gas, i.e., water, that are linked to changes in CO2, compensate for nearly all of CO2's greenhouse activity. This would, on balance, make CO2 and temperature appear to be independent of each other. Still, until there are actual observations to the contrary, I prefer the simpler explanation.