I’ve been having some discussions with a colleague who has never thought too hard about anthropogenic global warming.
Anyway, he says there must be some work/some research results that have been published in reputable scientific journals that:
1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming, and
2. quantify the extent of the warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
What he really want is links to research papers or citations to research papers.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read the IPCC reports. All the scientific reasearch they are based on are listed.
Thanks SJT. But it is a long document – the IPCC reports.
Can you provide us with the citation for one or two of the most relevant papers with respect to this issue of causation and carbon dioxide?
SJT,
I posted a similar request at John Quiggins site and he had a similar response to you, he commented:
“My suggestion for a reasonably well-educated novice would be to start with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, particularly Chapter 9, on understanding and attributing climate change. This summarises the literature on these questions, and the reference list includes hundreds of papers on both the causal link and the question of sensitivity (the standard way in which these questions are addressed). There’s also a supplementary CD-ROM on sensitivity, if you’re really keen. (All this is well-timed as I’m just working on a paper for an econ journal which has required me to go over some of this literature).”
Furthermore, in the same comment, John Quiggin has said the reference list in the fourth assessment report includes:
“hundreds of papers on both the causal link and the question of sensitivity”
So I guess you, John Quiggin, or perhaps even Luke, will be able to provide a citation for just a few of these papers at this thread and/or at John Quiggins here:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/08/10/the-cis-and-delusionism/#comments ?
Jen,
You haven’t read AR4? You really need to read it, there’s more ammo there than in Al Gore’s utility bills.
Mike c,
I suspect that Jen has read it and she’s asking the questions because she probably tried and could not find anything that really hit on the fundamentals.
On Q1, someone needs to explain the physics by which the 3% of the 3% of the CO2 which should increase temp a small amount, then causes increased water evaporation that magnifies the Co2 induced warming
…and if CO2 warming does this why would this be different from a a normal cyclic climate temperature increase. Does the non-CO2 augmented warming not cause increased water evaporation? It it does, does it cause different types of cloud formations?
Pete,
Further to your comment, if all water vapor disappeared tomorrow then the warming effect of CO2 would continue and, similarly, if all CO2 disappeared then the warming from water vapor would continue. From this, it has to follow that the two are parallel processes creating a cumulative effect, and the one in isolation cannot really be considered as a feedback for the other. Furthermore, as the warming effect of water vapor – at current concentrations – is far more than that of CO2 (exacerbated by the positive feedback you mention), there must exist a powerful negative feedback mechanism, otherwise global temperatures would be far higher than they are. And this negative feedback reduces the effect of the overall warming – including that of CO2
Well Jen – clever questions. It’s a bit like pls describe the universe and give two examples.
Predicting where this discussion might go – what can one possibly cite to answer your questions with brevity.
(1) has this situation happened before and what happened – PETM?
(2) pls provide a report from a replicate planet Earth analogous to 1900-2000, where humans have suddenly released a pulse of additional CO2 into the atmosphere and observed over 200 years. – results being ….
Given the complexities of radiation physics, water vapour feedbacks, clouds, aerosols, land use changes etc – it’s unlikely that you will get a single paper that explains the entire universe and gives two examples. You will only get a collection of answers on individual components. And as recent discussions here have noted you will get down to debates at the actual quantum molecular level.
I once read a quote from Richard Lindzen stating that if you completely removed co2 from the atmosphere 98% of the greenhouse effect would still function because of water vapour and clouds.
I will pay $1,000.00 to the first person to provide a reference to the sort of paper Jennifer has described.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html
Can I nominate the charity.
C’mon Luke stop quibbling. There must be a seminal a paper or a set of “peer reviewed” papers that establishes these two core basics of the AGW theory. Otherwise, how did the theory get established?
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
Jennifer: I have to agree with Luke in that our understanding can only come from a background of quantum physics supporting the bulk of climate science.
From a quick Google on “quantum physics global warming”, after excluding all blogs (recommended) we find stuff like this “The Quantum and Fluid Mechanics of Global Warming”
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR08/Event/77742
From a purely engineering point of view I should have included fluid dynamics because that is fundamental to my own understanding of these issues.
The last para of Luke’s ref is relelvant.
“Until the most salient features of these events, for example the global patterns of carbonate deposition or the extreme polar warmth, can be replicated with dynamical models, forecasts of climate beyond the next century (that is, under extreme greenhouse gas levels) should be viewed with caution, and efforts to comprehend the underlying physics and biogeochemistry of the coupling between climate and the carbon cycle should be hastened.”
The last few words imply they cannot answer Jennifers very reasonable question either!
“The last few words imply they cannot answer Jennifers very reasonable question either!”
Bollocks, they just say that predictions beyond the next century (i.e 100 years hence) are not reliable and we need more research. Once again an opponent of science corrupts their argument with selective quotation.
And it looks like this blog is on its last legs, I mean school girl coyness as a debating strategy is OK for school girls (and Question Time) but we’re all grown up now.
BTW when are you handing out the cash Duffy? Expect to here an annoucement on CP this evening. Perhaps you can donate to the “Human Fund”, I think George Costanza set it up.
Roy Spencer and the Aqua satellite team can’t find positive feedbacks to co2 only negative feedbacks in the REAL ATMOSPHERE.
You may be able to measure this on a lab bench in a jar but that has bugger all to do with the REAL WORLD.
Ditto the missing hot spot proving CO2 forcing so far is as delusional as you can get.
Marrying quantum physics with the macro-events of AGW;
Eli’s tipping point paradox; Zeno’s arrow, or infinite divisiblity, revisted; thus, the rate of excitation by absorption of LW of a CO2 molecule is much slower than the rate of deexcitation; ergo, layer saturation is unobtainable; there will always be unexcited molecules to aborb LW; there is not a theoretical limit; runnaway looms; compounding this is the assumption of an ever-expanding, semi-infinite vertical stack of opaque layers ready to intercept any LW which escapes from the layer below; Zeno works vertically as well as horizontally.
This in a nut shell is the quantum basis of AGW.
How many things are wrong with it? Too many to list now; off to court; will prosecute when return.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
What thinkest thou of this?
It reads as though done by someone who is thorough?
fluff4
Jennifer
You need to phrase the questions better,
1. Do you mean what is the process by which CO2 absorbs and re-radiates? Or do you mean a more general question about the current level of CO2 and the current amount of global warming?
2. Do you want to know the difference between the climate now and what it could have been if CO2 had stayed around 280ppm? This is a very difficult question – all there’d be is models. And not the pretty kind…
Cohenite, there aren’t so many things wrong with it. Remember the Earth effectively has a pulsed heat source due to the rotation of the Earth.
An edited copy of a post a John Quiggin’s blog:
Undergraduate textbooks are the appropriate place to look for the answer for this. Recently I’ve had a little time on my hands, and sat down with some undergraduate textbooks on meteorology and climate modelling. These are much more readable and structured than the IPCC stuff. So try:
* Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey. Wallace and Hobbs
* An Intro. to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling. Washington and Parkinson.
These require a bit of vector calculus and undergraduate physics, but are otherwise quite readable. Chapter 6 of the last one directly answers the questions above, as does the last chapter of “Atmospheric Science”, but the answers are obviously based on the previous material in the books.
They both reference hundreds of papers.
References for you:
Callendar, G.S., 1938: The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 64, 223–237.
Although old this is pre-computer modelling and explains the physical principles involved from the basics – it is a “seminal” paper as CoRev suggests. The IPCC cite it as one of the first sources to examine the connection between CO2 and global temperature against temperature measurements (you didn’t specify recent). The mechanisms are still the same as they were then and because it is so early it gives an overview rather than today’s hyperspecialisation.
All that is necessary is to use more up-to-date figures for CO2 caused radiative forcing (as we now call it) in Chamberlain’s equation for the determination of temperature by forcing and an estimate of how much of the CO2 has been added by humans.
This is supplied by:
D. J . HOFMANN, J. H. BUTLER, E. J . DLUGOKENCKY, J . W. ELKINS, K. MASARIE, S. A. MONTZKA and P. TANS, The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, Tellus B, Vol 58, Issue 5, pp.614-619, 2006.
This explicitly states, inter alia:
“Calculation of radiative forcing does not rely on climate feedbacks (e.g., changes in albedo or atmospheric water vapour content), and computationally intensive climate models are not needed.”, so no carping about this being a model or a theory, not scientific observational measurement.
Pay up Duffy. 15 day terms. I accept Paypal. If you are unable to access copies of these papers I am happy to email them to you.
Callendar covers question 1 pretty well, though I guess you could always go back to Arrhenius.
As regards the contest, I listed a number of articles on sensitivity, which I’d cited in my own research at 0614, a while before Michael Duffy made his offer. I’m not sure if that’s eligible or not.
Anyway, the conditions have clearly been satisfied, so I guess it’s up to Michael to nominate the winner(s) (or to concede that this is one of those trick offers you get from sweepstakes companies and the like, where the prize can’t actually be won).
errata: “Chamberlain” should be “Callendar” – dunno where that came from.
“Read the IPCC reports. All the scientific reasearch they are based on are listed.”
What a liar you are SJT. You cannot even find one such study yet you pretend there is an whole swag of them. Face it. This is science fraud. And there must be some sort of punishment for this racket.
So Quiggin and Haughton are claiming that the one-line assertion says it all. Quiggin can you resign? Clearly you are a failed analyst and ought not be teaching the kids.
Does this ancient study take into account that the data has been updated since then? What is the body of the study that you reckon can make this link?
That Quiggin is willing to go back to Arrenhius just shows the low standards he is willing to stoop to.
Come on fellas. Lets see the evidence or admit you are wrong and have been lying.
“As regards the contest, I listed a number of articles on sensitivity…”
None of which relate to carbon dioxide RIGHT?
If you went for an Annan study it would have been volcanic activity that was used to calculate this hypothetical LAMBA. A make-believe and highly processed figure. Which says nothing about the effect of CO2. Typical Keynesian/Neoclassical nutball. Confuses the model with reality every time.
Michael Duffy: $1000 to anyone who can provide a reference to a paper (with certain features).
John Quiggin and James Haughton: here you are.
Graeme Bird: those are just references to studies.
Told you that this wouldn’t be done in good faith.
Bird: “Does this ancient study take into account that the data has been updated since then?”
Since Mr Callendar did not possess a time machine, I doubt it.
Thanks guys. I shall be critically reviewing the papers you suggest to see if they fit the bill. So far from this and the thread at John Quiggins blog I have:
1. Callendar, G.S., 1938: The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 64, 223–237.
2. D. J . HOFMANN, J. H. BUTLER, E. J . DLUGOKENCKY, J . W. ELKINS, K. MASARIE, S. A. MONTZKA and P. TANS, The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, Tellus B, Vol 58, Issue 5, pp.614-619, 2006.
3. Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years by Thomas Crowley. It was published in Science (July 14, 2000 Science, 289: 270-277).
But give me a few days and I’m not sure how long Michael will need. Also you could potentially speed up the process by emailing me pdfs. The address is: jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
Once I have the papers we might dissect them individually?
And maybe there are more? John mentioned 100s of papers in his comment last night?
If you want 100s of papers, I can send you the IPCCs bibliography, though it would be easier to look it up for yourself. From the tone of your request (“a friend who had never thought too hard about”) it sounded like you were looking for overviews of the basic science, hence my picking an early, simply written paper. Is this no longer the case? Or does your friend have an inordinate amount of reading time to spare?
You should at least include Washington and Parkinson’s book in your list Jennifer.
Get away from theories tested in the lab and computer programs, in the REAL ATMOSPHERE of the REAL WORLD it produces no temperature increase at all.
You are talking fairy stories and you are definitely away with the fairies.
Patrick B
Bollocks to your bollocks.
This geological paper makes no predictions at all, simply a reasonable attempt at measuring previous climatic episodes with some explicitly-stated “a priori” assumptions (eg. temp rises are caused by rises in CO2 concentrations).
I find the paper interesting, as are many of similar ilk, because it attempts to trace palaeo-climate patterns based on geological core – a method I regard as quite geologically honest.
The CO2 concentrations measured by proxy are over 5 times today’s levels and were likely rapidly achieved (according to this paper) by large and continuous episodes of volcanism. This mechanism also ejects huge volumes of SOx, NOx, CH4 and pyroclastic particulates as well as altering chemical weathering patterns of the surface-exposed silicates.
Of mild interest is that the AGW zealots are now quoting geological evidence in support of their hypothesis after previously stating that such evidence is irrelevant (too slow, in the past, never happened before etc – I have had CSIRO environmental scientists tell me such things outright). I can only approve of this rush to evidential data.
Patrick,
No books. The request was for peer reviewed journal articles. So far I can only see three as potential contenders and one was published in 1938. Interesting.
Which part of “hundreds” don’t you understand?
So am I getting paid or what. Show me the money !
Jennifer, the reason people can’t find you many is because your questions are poorly phrased.
And why no books? Books will give you references to papers.
Anyway I’ll ask again
1. Do you mean what is the process by which CO2 absorbs and re-radiates? Or do you mean a more general question about the current level of CO2 and the current amount of global warming?
2. Do you want to know the difference between the climate now and what it could have been if CO2 had stayed around 280ppm? This is a very difficult question – all there’d be is models. And not the pretty kind…
Jennifer – “No books. The request was for peer reviewed journal articles. So far I can only see three as potential contenders and one was published in 1938. Interesting.”
So the people on JQ were right. You are just trolling so you can say that these are the only peer reviewed papers available.
Not really good form for a scientist.
Any scientist worth their salt would read AR4.
Are you going to post this comment on JQ or shall I?
Why not look up Hansen in Google Scholar, he’d have lots of papers.
Here’s on of Hansen’s
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/4511/957
Does this fit your criteria?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/248/4960/1217
This one may be similar
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html
” On this basis, carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of the contribution to global warming of current greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 57% of the increase in radiative forcing for the 1980s.”
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5604028
“The physical basis of the projected changes in climate due to enhancement of the greenhouse effect is outlined”
There are heaps of papers, you just need to be more specific with your questions.
Peter said…”there must exist a powerful negative feedback mechanism, otherwise global temperatures would be far higher than they are”.
Peter…have you considered that the AGW theory could be wrong? What if the warming is coming from some other mechanism? We’ve only had a highly theoretical 0.6 C warming in a century, why presume it should be much higher? Only computer models have predicted that.
Richard Lindzen has already considered what would happen if all GHG’s disappeared, leaving only water vapour. He reckoned the greenhouse effect would still be 97% intact, so even if the H2O and CO2 are parallel processes, calling them cumulative makes little sense.
The AGW crowd have tried the negative feedback theory using aerosols. Even James Hansen gave up on that one.
Gordon – “He reckoned the greenhouse effect would still be 97% intact, so even if the H2O and CO2 are parallel processes, calling them cumulative makes little sense.”
So did he publish this ‘reckoning’? Did he publish the calculations or model runs that he used to come to this conclusion?
1938? My goodness you people are scraping the bottom of the barrel. These studies will be nonsense. They will rely on things other than CO2 to imply a CO2 effect. Thats what every study I’ve seen tries to do once you look closely at it. Thats how James Annan and others have managed to put about this 3 degrees baloney.
The other thing they will try on is a sort of god-of-gaps nonsense. Where they will overestimate the total greenhouse effect on the basis of their original watts-per-square-metre estimate. They will assume that any unexpected temperature is all due to greenhouse and nothing else. As if tidal warming, heat generation from the planet, and atmospheric strata would have no effect on temperature if we could take the greenhouse effect away. Its truly flat earth science.
Hey, you want 100, I’ll find you 100. For another, say, $5000, $1000 non-refundable up-front. And I don’t start until I get paid the original $1000. There’s a limit to how much of your research I’ll do for you without payment!
ooh, ooh, ooh! Can I win too?
Here’s some (from here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html )
Publications by James E. Hansen
Hansen, J., 2008: Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans. W. Woods, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 534 kB)
Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2008: Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric CO2 and climate. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB3012, doi:10.1029/2007GB003142.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 463 kB)
2007
Hansen, J., 2007: Climate catastrophe. New Scientist, 195, no. 2614 (July 28), 30-34.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.2 MB)
* Based on an article previously published in Environ. Res. Lett., 2, 024002.
Hansen, J., 2007: Why we can’t wait: A 5-step plan for solving the global crisis. Nation, 284, no. 18 (May 7), 13-14.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 165 kB)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 980 kB)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, R. Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, N. Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang, 2007: Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2287-2312.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 6.0 MB)
* Read related news release
* Also see related dataset webpage.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, R. Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, N. Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang, 2007: Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE. Clim. Dynam., 29, 661-696, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0255-8.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 24.4 MB)
* There is also supplementary material (1.9 MB PDF). Note that document is large! A smaller draft version is available, but with low-quality graphics and some uncorrected typos and other minor errors.
Hansen, J.E., 2007: Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environ. Res. Lett., 2, 024002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 197 kB)
* This article was reprinted in revised form in New Scientist, 195, iss. 2614 (July 28, 2007), 30-34.
Mishchenko, M.I., B. Cairns, G. Kopp, C.F. Schueler, B.A. Fafaul, J.E. Hansen, R.J. Hooker, T. Itchkawich, H.B. Maring, and L.D. Travis, 2007: Precise and accurate monitoring of terrestrial aerosols and total solar irradiance: Introducing the Glory mission. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 677-691, doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-5-677.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 3.5 MB)
Nazarenko, L., N. Tausnev, and J. Hansen, 2007: The North Atlantic thermohaline circulation simulated by the GISS climate model during 1970-99. Atmos.-Ocean, 45, 81-92, doi:10.3137/ao.450202.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 308 kB)
Novakov, T., S. Menon, T.W. Kirchstetter, D. Koch, and J.E. Hansen, 2007: Reply to comment by R. L. Tanner and D. J. Eatough on “Aerosol organic carbon to black carbon ratios: Analysis of published data and implications for climate forcing”. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D02203, doi:10.1029/2006JD007941.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 47 kB)
Rahmstorf, S., A. Cazenave, J.A. Church, J.E. Hansen, R.F. Keeling, D.E. Parker, and R.C.J. Somerville, 2007: Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science, 316, 709, doi:10.1126/science.1136843.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 917 kB)
2006
Hansen, J., 2006: The threat to the planet. New York Rev. Books, 53, no. 12 (July 13, 2006), 12-16.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 541 kB)
* Follow-up letters and responses are available (110 kB PDF).
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.4 MB)
* Read supplementary material
* Read related news release
* See related dataset webpage.
Nazarenko, L., N. Tausnev, and J. Hansen, 2006: Sea-ice and North Atlantic climate response to CO2-induced warming and cooling conditions. J. Glaciol., 52, 433-439.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 612 kB)
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, P.J. Gleckler, C. Bonfils, M.F. Wehner, K. AchutaRao, T.P. Barnett, J.S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann, M. Fiorino, N. Gillett, J.E. Hansen, P.D. Jones, S.A. Klein, G.A. Meehl, S.C.B. Raper, R.W. Reynolds, K.E. Taylor, and W.M. Washington, 2006: Forced and unforced ocean temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 13905-13910, doi:10.1073/pnas.0602861103.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 739 kB)
Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, J.E. Hansen, I. Aleinov, N. Bell, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, A.D. Friend, T.M. Hall, Y. Hu, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, A.A. Lacis, J. Lerner, K.K. Lo, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, G.L. Russell, Mki. Sato, D.T. Shindell, P.H. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, and M.-S. Yao, 2006: Present day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in-situ, satellite and reanalysis data. J. Climate, 19, 153-192, doi:10.1175/JCLI3612.1.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.2 MB)
* Also see the ModelE homepage.
Shindell, D., G. Faluvegi, A. Lacis, J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, and E. Aguilar, 2006: Role of tropospheric ozone increases in 20th century climate change. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D08302, doi:10.1029/2005JD006348.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.1 MB)
* Read related news release
Shindell, D.T., G. Faluvegi, R.L. Miller, G.A. Schmidt, J.E. Hansen, and S. Sun, 2006: Solar and anthropogenic forcing of tropical hydrology. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24706, doi:10.1029/2006GL027468, 2006.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 528 kB)
* Read related news release
2005
Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 245 kB)
* Read supplementary material
* Read related news release
* See related dataset webpage.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, L. Nazarenko, A. Lacis, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, N. Bell, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, J. Lean, J. Lerner, K. Lo, S. Menon, R.L. Miller, P. Minnis, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, B. Wielicki, T. Wong, M. Yao, and S. Zhang, 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 20.5 MB)
* Also see related dataset webpage.
Hansen, J.E., 2005: A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference”? An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 68, 269-279, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 253 kB)
Koch, D., and J. Hansen, 2005: Distant origins of Arctic black carbon: A Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE experiment. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D04204, doi:10.1029/2004JD005296.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.1 MB)
* Read related news release
Novakov, T., S. Menon, T.W. Kirchstetter, D. Koch, and J.E. Hansen, 2005: Aerosol organic carbon to black carbon ratios: Analysis of published data and implications for climate forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 110, D21205, doi:10.1029/2005JD005977.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 844 kB)
* See also Novakov et al. 2007, “Reply to comment by R. L. Tanner and D. J. Eatough”, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D02203.
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, C. Mears, F.J. Wentz, S.A. Klein, D.J. Seidel, K.E. Taylor, P.W. Thorne, M.F. Wehner, P.J. Gleckler, J.S. Boyle, W.D. Collins, K.W. Dixon, C. Doutriaux, M. Free, Q. Fu, J.E. Hansen, G.S. Jones, R. Ruedy, T.R. Karl, J.R. Lanzante, G.A. Meehl, V. Ramaswamy, G. Russell, and G.A. Schmidt, 2005: Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science, 309, 1551-1556, doi:10.1126/science.1114867.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 565 kB)
2004
Hansen, J., 2004: Defusing the global warming time bomb. Sci. Amer., 290, no. 3, 68-77.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 310 kB)
* This is a shorter version of an article published on-line in 2003 as “Can we defuse the global warming time bomb?”.
Hansen, J., T. Bond, B. Cairns, H. Gaeggler, B. Liepert, T. Novakov, and B. Schichtel, 2004: Carbonaceous aerosols in the industrial era. Eos Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 85, no. 25, 241, 245.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 148 kB)
Hansen, J., and L. Nazarenko, 2004: Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101, 423-428, doi:10.1073/pnas.2237157100.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 789 kB)
* Read supplementary material
* Read related science brief
* Read related news release
Hansen, J., and Mki. Sato, 2004: Greenhouse gas growth rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101, 16109-16114, doi:10.1073/pnas.0406982101.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 584 kB)
* Read supplementary material
Mishchenko, M.I., B. Cairns, J.E. Hansen, L.D. Travis, R. Burg, Y.J. Kaufman, J.V. Martins, and E.P. Shettle, 2004: Monitoring of aerosol forcing of climate from space: Analysis of measurement requirements. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 88, 149-161, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2004.03.030.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 400 kB)
* Document on GISS website includes typographical corrections to published text.
Novakov, T., and J.E. Hansen, 2004: Black carbon emissions in the United Kingdom during the past four decades: An empirical analysis. Atmos. Environ., 38, 4155-4163, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.04.031.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 310 kB)
2003
Hansen, J., 2003: Can we defuse the global warming time bomb? naturalScience, posted Aug. 1, 2003.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.4 MB)
* This article was derived from a presentation made to the Council on Environmental Quality, June 12, 2003. Document on GISS site is the preferred text and was last revised January 2004. A shorter version of this article was published in 2004 as “Defusing the global warming time bomb”.
Novakov, T., V. Ramanathan, J.E. Hansen, T.W. Kirchstetter, Mki. Sato, J.E. Sinton, and J.A. Satahye, 2003: Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, no. 6, 1324, doi:10.1029/2002GL016345.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 268 kB)
Santer, B.D., R. Sausen, T.M.L. Wigley, J.S. Boyle, K. AchutaRao, C. Doutriaux, J.E. Hansen, G.A. Meehl, E. Roeckner, R. Ruedy, G. Schmidt, and K.E. Taylor, 2003: Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. J. Geophys. Res., 108, no. D1, 4002, doi:10.1029/2002JD002258.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 3.4 MB)
Sato, Mki., J. Hansen, D. Koch, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, O. Dubovik, B. Holben, M. Chin, and T. Novakov, 2003: Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 100, 6319-6324, doi:10.1073/pnas.0731897100.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 542 kB)
* Read related news release
Sun, S., and J.E. Hansen, 2003: Climate simulations for 1951-2050 with a coupled atmosphere-ocean model. J. Climate, 16, 2807-2826, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.8 MB)
* Read related science brief
* Read related news release
2002
Carmichael, G.R., D.G. Streets, G. Calori, M. Amann, M.Z. Jacobson, J. Hansen, and H. Ueda, 2002: Changing trends in sulfur emissions in Asia: Implications for acid deposition. Environ. Sci. Tech, 36, 4707-4713, doi:10.1021/es011509c.
* Read abstract
* Go to journal webpage
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, and K. Lo, 2002: Global warming continues. Science, 295, 275, doi:10.1126/science.295.5553.275c.
* Download PDF (Document is 271 kB)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, D. Koch, I. Tegen, T. Hall, D. Shindell, B. Santer, P. Stone, T. Novakov, L. Thomason, R. Wang, Y. Wang, D. Jacob, S. Hollandsworth, L. Bishop, J. Logan, A. Thompson, R. Stolarski, J. Lean, R. Willson, S. Levitus, J. Antonov, N. Rayner, D. Parker, and J. Christy, 2002: Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 107, no. D18, 4347, doi:10.1029/2001JD001143.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.4 MB)
* Read related news release
Hansen, J.E. (Ed.), 2002: Air Pollution as a Climate Forcing: A Workshop. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
* Read abstract
* Go to document (Document is 86 kB)
Hansen, J.E., 2002: A brighter future. Climatic Change, 52, 435-440, doi:10.1023/A:1014226429221.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 86 kB)
Menon, S., J.E. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, and Y. Luo, 2002: Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. Science, 297, 2250-2253, doi:10.1126/science.1075159.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 541 kB)
* Read related news release
Robinson, W.A., R. Ruedy, and J.E. Hansen, 2002: General circulation model simulations of recent cooling in the east-central United States. J. Geophys. Res., 107, no. D24, 4748, doi:10.1029/2001JD001577.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.4 MB)
2001
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 3.9 MB)
* Read related news release
Hansen, J.E., and Mki. Sato, 2001: Trends of measured climate forcing agents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 98, 14778-14783, doi:10.1073/pnas.261553698.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 392 kB)
* Read related science brief
* Read related news release
Nazarenko, L., J. Hansen, N. Tausnev, and R. Ruedy, 2001: Response of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice to greenhouse forcing in a global climate model. Ann. Glaciol., 33, 513-520.
* Read abstract
Oinas, V., A.A. Lacis, D. Rind, D.T. Shindell, and J.E. Hansen, 2001: Radiative cooling by stratospheric water vapor: Big differences in GCM results. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2791-2794, doi:10.1029/2001GL013137.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 575 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, C. Doutriaux, J.S. Boyle, J.E. Hansen, P.D. Jones, G.A. Meehl, E. Roeckner, S. Sengupta, and K.E. Taylor, 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 28033-28059, doi:10.1029/2000JD000189.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.7 MB)
Streets, D.G., K. Jiang, X. Hu, J.E. Sinton, X.-Q. Zhang, D. Xu, M.Z. Jacobson, and J.E. Hansen, 2001: Recent reductions in China’s greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 294, 1835-1837, doi:10.1126/science.1065226.
* Download PDF (Document is 85 kB)
2000
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, Mki. Sato, L. Nazarenko, N. Tausnev, I. Tegen, and D. Koch, 2000: Climate modeling in the global warming debate. In General Circulation Model Development. D. Randall, Ed. Academic Press, pp. 127-164.
* Read related science brief
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, and V. Oinas, 2000: Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 97, 9875-9880, doi:10.1073/pnas.170278997.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 306 kB)
* Read related news release
Hansen, J.E., 2000: The Sun’s role in long-term climate change. Space Sci. Rev., 94, 349-356, doi:10.1023/A:1026748129347.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 40 kB)
Lacis, A.A., B.E. Carlson, and J.E. Hansen, 2000: Retrieval of atmospheric NO2, O3, aerosol optical depth, effective radius and variance information from SAGE II multi-spectral extinction measurements. Appl. Math. Comput., 116, 133-151, doi:10.1016/S0096-3003(99)00200-3.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 625 kB)
1999
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 15.5 MB)
1998
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, J. Glascoe, and R. Ruedy, 1998: A common sense climate index: Is climate changing noticeably? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 95, 4113-4120.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 636 kB)
* Read related science brief
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, I. Tegen, and E. Matthews, 1998: Perspective: Climate forcings in the industrial era. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 95, 12753-12758.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 619 kB)
* Read related science brief
Hansen, J.E., 1998: Book review of Sir John Houghton’s Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. J. Atmos. Chem., 30, 409-412.
* Download PDF (Document is 19 kB)
Hansen, J.E., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, and J. Glascoe, 1998: Global climate data and models: A reconciliation. Science, 281, 930-932, doi:10.1126/science.281.5379.930.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 440 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Matthews, E., and J. Hansen (Eds.), 1998: Land Surface Modeling: A Mini-Workshop. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
* Read abstract
* Go to document (Document is 391 kB)
1997
Hansen, J., C. Harris, C. Borenstein, B. Curran, and M. Fox, 1997: Research education. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 25677-25678, doi:10.1029/97JD02172.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 339 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, G. Russell, Mki. Sato, J. Lerner, D. Rind, and P. Stone, 1997: Wonderland climate model. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6823-6830, doi:10.1029/96JD03435.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.3 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, A. Lacis, and R. Ruedy, 1997: The missing climate forcing. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London B, 352, 231-240.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 669 kB)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1997: Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831-6864, doi:10.1029/96JD03436.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 5.9 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, K. Asamoah, K. Beckford, S. Borenstein, E. Brown, B. Cairns, B. Carlson, B. Curran, S. de Castro, L. Druyan, P. Etwarrow, T. Ferede, M. Fox, D. Gaffen, J. Glascoe, H. Gordon, S. Hollandsworth, X. Jiang, C. Johnson, N. Lawrence, J. Lean, J. Lerner, K. Lo, J. Logan, A. Luckett, M.P. McCormick, R. McPeters, R.L. Miller, P. Minnis, I. Ramberran, G. Russell, P. Russell, P. Stone, I. Tegen, S. Thomas, L. Thomason, A. Thompson, J. Wilder, R. Willson, and J. Zawodny, 1997: Forcings and chaos in interannual to decadal climate change. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 25679-25720, doi:10.1029/97JD01495.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 22.9 MB; scanned, no OCR)
* Read related science brief
1996
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, and R. Reynolds, 1996: Global surface air temperature in 1995: Return to pre-Pinatubo level. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 1665-1668, doi:10.1029/96GL01040.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 536 kB)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, K. Asamoah, S. Borenstein, E. Brown, B. Cairns, G. Caliri, M. Campbell, B. Curran, S. de Castro, L. Druyan, M. Fox, C. Johnson, J. Lerner, M.P. McCormick, R.L. Miller, P. Minnis, A. Morrison, L. Pandolfo, I. Ramberran, F. Zaucker, M. Robinson, P. Russell, K. Shah, P. Stone, I. Tegen, L. Thomason, J. Wilder, and H. Wilson, 1996: A Pinatubo climate modeling investigation. In The Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Effects on the Atmosphere and Climate, NATO ASI Series Vol. I 42. G. Fiocco, D. Fua, and G. Visconti, Eds. Springer-Verlag, pp. 233-272.
* Read abstract
* Read related science brief
1995
Hansen, J., W. Rossow, B. Carlson, A. Lacis, L. Travis, A. Del Genio, I. Fung, B. Cairns, M. Mishchenko, and Mki. Sato, 1995: Low-cost long-term monitoring of global climate forcings and feedbacks. Climatic Change, 31, 247-271, doi:10.1007/BF01095149.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.7 MB)
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1995: Long-term changes of the diurnal temperature cycle: Implications about mechanisms of global climate change. Atmos. Res., 37, 175-209, doi:10.1016/0169-8095(94)00077-Q.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.7 MB)
Hansen, J., H. Wilson, Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Shah, and E. Hansen, 1995: Satellite and surface temperature data at odds? Climatic Change, 30, 103-117, doi:10.1007/BF01093228.
* Read abstract
* Go to journal webpage
1993
Hansen, J., 1993: Climate forcings and feedbacks. In Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks, NASA CP-3234. J. Hansen, W. Rossow, and I. Fung, Eds. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 6-12.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.0 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., 1993: Climsat rationale. In Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks, NASA CP-3234. J. Hansen, W. Rossow, and I. Fung, Eds. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 26-35.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 493 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, and H. Wilson, 1993: How sensitive is the world’s climate? Natl. Geog. Soc. Res. Exploration, 9, 142-158.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 3.4 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., W. Rossow, and I. Fung (Eds.), 1993: Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks. NASA CP-3234. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 8.2 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., and H. Wilson, 1993: Commentary on the significance of global temperature records. Climatic Change, 25, 185-191, doi:10.1007/BF01661206.
* Go to journal webpage
Pollack, J.B., D. Rind, A. Lacis, J.E. Hansen, Mki. Sato, and R. Ruedy, 1993: GCM simulations of volcanic aerosol forcing. Part I: Climate changes induced by steady-state perturbations. J. Climate, 6, 1719-1742, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1993)0062.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.0 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Sato, Mki., J.E. Hansen, M.P. McCormick, and J.B. Pollack, 1993: Stratospheric aerosol optical depths, 1850-1990. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 22987-22994, doi:10.1029/93JD02553.
* Read abstract
* Go to journal webpage
1992
Charlson, R.J., S.E. Schwartz, J.M. Hales, R.D. Cess, J.A. Coakley, Jr., J.E. Hansen, and D.J. Hoffman, 1992: Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols. Science, 255, 423-430, doi:10.1126/science.255.5043.423.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 969 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, and Mki. Sato, 1992: Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption. Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 215-218, doi:10.1029/91GL02788.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 543 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Lacis, A., J. Hansen, and Mki. Sato, 1992: Climate forcing by stratospheric aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 1607-1610, doi:10.1029/92GL01620.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 425 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1991
Hansen, J., D. Rind, A. Del Genio, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, M. Prather, R. Ruedy, and T. Karl, 1991: Regional greenhouse climate effects. In Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climatic Change: A Critical Appraisal of Simulations and Observations. M.E. Schlesinger, Ed. Elsevier, pp. 211-229.
* Read abstract
* Condensed from a 1989 paper of the same name in Coping with Climatic Change: Proceedings of the Second North American Conference on Preparing for Climate Change.
1990
Hansen, J., W. Rossow, and I. Fung, 1990: The missing data on global climate change. Issues Sci. Technol., 7, 62-69.
* Read abstract
Hansen, J.E., and A.A. Lacis, 1990: Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: An assessment of their relative roles in global climate change. Nature, 346, 713-719, doi:10.1038/346713a0.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 866 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., A.A. Lacis, and R.A. Ruedy, 1990: Comparison of solar and other influences on long-term climate. In Climate Impact of Solar Variability, NASA CP-3086. K.H. Schatten and A. Arking, Eds. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 135-145.
* Read abstract
Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, J. Hansen, and H. Le Treut, 1990: The ice-core record: Climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347, 139-145, doi:10.1038/347139a0.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 871 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Rind, D., R. Goldberg, J. Hansen, C. Rosenzweig, and R. Ruedy, 1990: Potential evapotranspiration and the likelihood of future drought. J. Geophys. Res., 95, 9983-10004.
* Read abstract
1989
Hansen, J., A. Lacis, and M. Prather, 1989: Greenhouse effect of chlorofluorocarbons and other trace gases. J. Geophys. Res., 94, 16417-16421.
* Read abstract
Hansen, J., D. Rind, A. Del Genio, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, M. Prather, R. Ruedy, and T. Karl, 1989: Regional greenhouse climate effects. In Coping with Climatic Change: Proceedings of the Second North American Conference on Preparing for Climate Change. J.C. Topping, Jr., Ed. The Climate Institute.
* Read abstract
* A condensed version of this paper was printed in 1991 in Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climatic Change: A Critical Appraisal of Simulations and Observations.
1988
Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9341-9364, doi:10.1029/88JD00231.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 5.9 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., and S. Lebedeff, 1988: Global surface air temperatures: Update through 1987. Geophys. Res. Lett., 15, 323-326, doi:10.1029/88GL02067.
* Read abstract
* Go to journal webpage
1987
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.
* Read abstract
Ramanathan, V., L. Callis, R. Cess, J. Hansen, I. Isaksen, W. Kuhn, A. Lacis, F. Luther, J. Mahlman, R. Reck, and M. Schlesinger, 1987: Climate-chemical interactions and effects of changing atmospheric trace gases. Rev. Geophys., 25, 1441-1482.
* Read abstract
1986
Hunten, D.M., L. Colin, and J.E. Hansen, 1986: Atmospheric science on the Galileo mission. Space Sci. Rev., 44, 191-240, doi:10.1007/BF00200817.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.8 MB)
1985
Bennett, T., W. Broecker, and J. Hansen (Eds.), 1985: North Atlantic Deep Water Formation. NASA CP-2367. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
* Read abstract
Hansen, J., G. Russell, A. Lacis, I. Fung, D Rind, and P. Stone, 1985: Climate response times: Dependence on climate sensitivity and ocean mixing. Science, 229, 857-859, doi:10.1126/science.229.4716.857.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 349 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., 1985: Geophysics: Global sea level trends. Nature, 313, 349-350, doi:10.1038/313349a0.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 295 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1984
Hansen, J., A. Lacis, and D. Rind, 1984: Climate trends due to increasing greenhouse gases. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE/San Diego, California, June 1-4, 1983, pp. 2796-2810.
* Read abstract
Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 3.2 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., and T. Takahashi (Eds.), 1984: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity. AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. American Geophysical Union.
* Based on papers presented at the Fourth Biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium held at Palisades, New York, October 25-27, 1982.
Rind, D., R. Suozzo, A. Lacis, G. Russell, and J. Hansen, 1984: 21 Layer Troposphere-Stratosphere Climate Model. NASA TM-86183. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
* Read abstract
1983
Hansen, J., V. Gornitz, S. Lebedeff, and E. Moore, 1983: Global mean sea level: Indicator of climate change? Science, 219, 997.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 75 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J., G. Russell, D. Rind, P. Stone, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and L. Travis, 1983: Efficient three-dimensional global models for climate studies: Models I and II. M. Weather Rev., 111, 609-662, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1983)1112.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 4.3 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Pinto, J.P., D. Rind, G.L. Russell, J.A. Lerner, J.E. Hansen, Y.L. Yung, and S. Hameed, 1983: A general circulation model study of atmospheric carbon monoxide. J. Geophys. Res., 88, 3691-3702.
* Read abstract
1982
Gornitz, V., S. Lebedeff, and J. Hansen, 1982: Global sea level trend in the past century. Science, 215, 1611-1614, doi:10.1126/science.215.4540.1611.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 480 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.1 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Lacis, A., J. Hansen, P. Lee, T. Mitchell, and S. Lebedeff, 1981: Greenhouse effect of trace gases, 1970-1980. Geophys. Res. Lett., 8, 1035-1038.
* Read abstract
1980
Hansen, J., 1980: Book review of Theory of Planetary Atmospheres by J.W. Chamberlain. Icarus, 41, 175-176.
* Download PDF (Document is 138 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., A.A. Lacis, P. Lee, and W.-C. Wang, 1980: Climatic effects of atmospheric aerosols. Ann. New York Acad. Sciences, 338, 575-587.
Kawabata, K., D.L. Coffeen, J.E. Hansen, W.A. Lane, Mko. Sato, and L.D. Travis, 1980: Cloud and haze properties from Pioneer Venus polarimetry. J. Geophys. Res., 85, 8129-8140.
* Read abstract
1979
Sato, Mki., and J.E. Hansen, 1979: Jupiter’s atmospheric composition and cloud structure deduced from absorption bands in reflected sunlight. J. Atmos. Sci., 36, 1133-1167, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1979)0362.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.9 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Travis, L.D., D.L. Coffeen, A.D. Del Genio, J.E. Hansen, K. Kawabata, A.A. Lacis, W.A. Lane, S.A. Limaye, W.B. Rossow, and P.H. Stone, 1979: Cloud images from the Pioneer Venus orbiter. Science, 205, 74-76, doi:10.1126/science.205.4401.74.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 617 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Travis, L.D., D.L. Coffeen, J.E. Hansen, K. Kawabata, A.A. Lacis, W.A. Lane, S.A. Limaye, and P.H. Stone, 1979: Orbiter cloud photopolarimeter investigation. Science, 203, 781-785, doi:10.1126/science.203.4382.781.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 690 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1978
Hansen, J.E., W.-C. Wang, and A.A. Lacis, 1978: Mount Agung eruption provides test of a global climatic perturbation. Science, 199, 1065-1068, doi:10.1126/science.199.4333.1065.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 525 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1977
Knollenberg, R.G., J. Hansen, B. Ragent, J. Martonchik, and M. Tomasko, 1977: The clouds of Venus. Space Sci. Rev., 20, 329-354, doi:10.1007/BF02186469.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.0 MB)
Lillie, C.F., C.W. Hord, K. Pang, D.L. Coffeen, and J.E. Hansen, 1977: The Voyager mission Photopolarimeter Experiment. Space Sci. Rev., 21, 159-181, doi:10.1007/BF00200849.
* Read abstract
* Go to journal webpage
Sato, Mki., K. Kawabata, and J.E. Hansen, 1977: A fast invariant imbedding method for multiple scattering calculations and an application to equivalent widths of CO2 lines on Venus. Astrophys. J., 216, 947-962.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Schubert, G., C.C. Counselman, III, J. Hansen, S.S. Limaye, G. Pettengill, A. Seiff, I.I. Shapiro, V.E. Suomi, F. Taylor, L. Travis, R. Woo, and R.E. Young, 1977: Dynamics, winds, circulation and turbulence in the atmosphere of Venus. Space Sci. Rev., 20, 357-387, doi:10.1007/BF02186459.
* Read abstract
* Go to journal webpage
1976
Kawata, Y., and J.E. Hansen, 1976: Circular polarization of sunlight reflected by Jupiter. In Jupiter: Studies of the Interior, Atmosphere, Magneteosphere, and Satellites. T. Gehrels, Ed. University of Arizona Press, pp. 516-530.
* Read abstract
Somerville, R.C.J., W.J. Quirk, J.E. Hansen, A.A. Lacis, and P.H. Stone, 1976: A search for short-term meteorological effects of solar variability in an atmospheric circulation model. J. Geophys. Res., 81, 1572-1576.
* Read abstract
Wang, W.-C., Y.L. Yung, A.A. Lacis, T. Mo, and J.E. Hansen, 1976: Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbation of trace gases. Science, 194, 685-690, doi:10.1126/science.194.4266.685.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 668 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1975
Hansen, J.E. (Ed.), 1975: The Atmosphere of Venus. NASA SP-382. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
* Read abstract
Kawabata, K., and J.E. Hansen, 1975: Interpretation of the variation of polarization over the disk of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 1133-1139, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1975)0322.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 587 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1974
Hansen, J.E., and J.W. Hovenier, 1974: Interpretation of the polarization of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1137-1160, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1974)0312.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.0 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., and L.D. Travis, 1974: Light scattering in planetary atmospheres. Space Sci. Rev., 16, 527-610, doi:10.1007/BF00168069.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 7.0 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Lacis, A.A., and J.E. Hansen, 1974: A parameterization for the absorption of solar radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 118-133, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1974)0312.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.2 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Lacis, A.A., and J.E. Hansen, 1974: Atmosphere of Venus: Implications of Venera 8 sunlight measurements. Science, 184, 979-983, doi:10.1126/science.184.4140.979.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 470 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Somerville, R.C.J., P.H. Stone, M. Halem, J.E. Hansen, J.S. Hogan, L.M. Druyan, G. Russell, A.A. Lacis, W.J. Quirk, and J. Tenenbaum, 1974: The GISS model of the global atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 84-117, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1974)0312.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.4 MB; scanned, no OCR)
1973
Whitehill, L.P., and J.E. Hansen, 1973: On the interpretation of the “inverse phase effect” for CO2 equivalent widths on Venus. Icarus, 20, 146-152, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90047-X.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 412 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1971
Hansen, J.E., 1971: Multiple scattering of polarized light in planetary atmospheres. Part I. The doubling method. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 120-125, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)0282.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 446 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., 1971: Multiple scattering of polarized light in planetary atmospheres. Part II. Sunlight reflected by terrestrial water clouds. J. Astmos. Sci., 28, 1400-1426, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)0282.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.8 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., 1971: Circular polarization of sunlight reflected by clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 1515-1516, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)0282.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 126 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Liou, K.-N., and J.E Hansen, 1971: Intensity and polarization for single scattering by polydisperse spheres: A comparison of ray optics and Mie theory. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 995-1004, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)0282.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 707 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1970
Hansen, J.E., and J.B. Pollack, 1970: Near-infrared light scattering by terrestrial clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 27, 265-281, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1970)0272.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.1 MB; scanned, no OCR)
1969
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Absorption-line formation in a scattering planetary atmosphere: A test of Van de Hulst’s similarity relations. Astrophys. J., 158, 337-349.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 1.5 MB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Exact and approximate solutions for multiple scattering by cloud and hazy planetary atmospheres. J. Atmos. Sci., 26, 478-487, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1969)0262.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 652 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Radiative transfer by doubling very thin layers. Astrophys. J., 155, 565-573, doi:10.1086/149892.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 775 kB; scanned, no OCR)
Hansen, J.E., and H. Cheyney, 1969: Theoretical spectral scattering of ice clouds in the near infrared. J. Geophys. Res., 74, 3337-3346.
* Read abstract
1968
Hansen, J.E., and H. Cheyney, 1968: Near infrared reflectivity of Venus and ice clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 629-633, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1968)0252.0.CO;2.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 393 kB; scanned, no OCR)
1967
Hansen, J.E., and S. Matsushima, 1967: The atmosphere and surface temperature of Venus: A dust insulation model. Astrophys. J., 150, 1139-1157.
* Read abstract
* Download PDF (Document is 2.3 MB; scanned, no OCR)
1966
Hansen, J.E., and S. Matsushima, 1966: Light illuminance and color in the Earth’s shadow. J. Geophys. Rev., 71, 1073-1081.
Matsushima, S., J.R. Zink, and J.E. Hansen, 1966: Atmospheric extinction by dust particles as determined from three-color photometry of the lunar eclipse of 19 December 1964. Astron. J., 71, 103-110.
Wilful! Quit flooding the market!
Plass, G.N. (1956). “Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate.” American J. Physics 24: 376-87.
$1000 please. In the spirit of cummunity, as exemplified by the olympic games, I’ll put it across the bar at my local.
Jennifer,
You are making a rather odd request. If you want to see how large scale climate modeling can answer your question (as opposed to other methods) you’re much better to read a book, as the work on how to build these things is rather old now, having been done in the early-to-mid twentieth century. Also some of the fundamental work was done in Russia, and then described in textbooks — again why a textbook is really the appropriate place to look. For instance, according to W&P, the basic equations for atmosphere are described in the following papers:
Arakawa, A.,1966: Computational design for long-term numerical integration of the formulation of atmospheric equations. J. Comp. Phys.
Kibel, IA. 1940. Application of the baroclinic fluid mechanics equations to meteorology. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR. (in Russian)
Kibel, IA, 1943. The temperature distribution in the Earth’s atmosphere Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 39 (1) 18-22 (in Russian)
Kasahara, A. 1977. Computational aspects of numerical models for weather prediction and climate simulation. In ‘General Circulation Models of the atmosphere’
Furthermore L.F. Richardson apparently described these equations in a 1922 monograph.
Reading a textbook makes this stuff a lot more accessible, and I imagine much easier to see the causal links than traipsing through decades old papers.
For instance again a lot of the original ocean stuff was also done in the USSR. I could do a similar exercise for you here if you would like, and also for land and sea-ice interactions, as well as a list of early papers on constructing AOGCMs and evaluating them. However I’m not sure what the purpose would be; if your friend really wants to understand the causal relationships, reading 200 papers is not the way to get an understanding. Reading a textbook is.
Luke said…”Given the complexities of radiation physics, water vapour feedbacks….it’s unlikely that you will get a single paper that explains the entire universe and gives two examples”.
That’s exactly the point. We are making overly simplified claims about a complex science in which the basics are not clearly understood. I’m sure there would be little problem in a lab, loading a container with CO2, running thermal energy through it and showing how it absorbs and radiates heat. It is well known, however, that heat transport in the atmosphere is very complex, involving precipitation systems that are not well understood. Yet bodies like the IPCC are willing to form exacting consensus based on partial theories.
Please indulge me for a moment while I take you through a parallel debate on HIV/AIDS, to demonstrate how a paradigm has become established without scientific proof. Not only that, the paradigm is focused on a virus while completely excluding the possibility of another cause, even though other causes make emminent sense and the viral cause is no closer to proof after 25 years.
Kary Mullis, a Nobel laureate, and the inventor of the PCR method for DNA amplification, has been looking for one paper that will demonstrate how HIV causes AIDS. He has not been able to find one even though he cornered Luc Montagnier, the co-finder of HIV, and asked him directly.
If you think my arguement is ridiculous, based on the popular ‘consensus’ that everybody knows HIV causes AIDS, then read this paper by Mullis.
http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
Better still, get it from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdbio.html
Check this guy’s credentials: California Scientist of the Year (1971), First Annual American Medical Center Oncology Award (1981), Outstanding Investigator Award, National Institutes of Health (1986), election to the National Academy of Sciences (1986). And those are only a few. Tell me how a scientist with this guy’s record gets relegated to teaching lab classes just because he claims HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
Please try to grasp what I’m saying. The scientist who actually identified HIV first could not direct Mullis to a paper that showed how HIV causes AIDS, and that’s because one does not exist. No one knows how HIV causes AIDS and no one can explain why it’s the only virus that can lay dormant for 15 years and suddenly overwhelm the immune system, even though it is outnumbered 800 to 1 by immune system cells in people with advanced AIDS.
Montagnier admitted that he did not isolate or purefy HIV and neither did Robert Gallo, the other scientist co-credited with finding it. The only electron microscope photos of HIV are murky renditions of cell matter or those that are computer enhanced.
For you Aussies, here one of your own, a highly believable researcher who can’t get herself published, and you guessed it, because she is skeptical about the HIV/AIDS theory.
http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html
Do we have to remind the world all over again about the Aussie scientist who pleaded with the world to just listen to his theory that ulcers are caused by a bacteria? He was ridiculed for the longest time but proved right eventually. So much for the vast majority of scientists.
For 25 years, we’ve had a theory foisted on us to explain AIDS, and people are still dying from the syndrome as fast as they did back when the cause was announced. A vaccine was released about a year ago and failed. Now that their predictions of a pandemic of HIV has failed to materialize in North America, the HIV/AIDS crowd are tormenting poor Africans, lead by a rock star and Bill Gates. I guess it’s easier to point the finger at poor, uneducated blacks after the predicted HIV pandemic in North America did not materialize.
When homosexual males began dying of AIDS in the New York and San Francisco bath houses in the late 1970’s, it was initially thought to be a life style issue. The homosexuals were having anal sex with multiple partners in a moist environment that carried bacteria in it. Besides exchanging their own bacteria, they were breathing it in too. They were enhancing the experience with amyl nitrate, a muscle relaxant that was inhaled by passing a bottle of it around. It is now well established that inhalation of that potent drug, originally intended for heart attack victims, is causing one of the lung diseases listed under the AIDS umbrella.
It may seem a stretch that drugs alone could cause AIDS, but we’re not talking about the recreational use of drugs on a casual basis, we’re talking about the out and out abuse of drugs. Amyl nitrate is a dangerous drug when abused because it severly damages the lining of the lungs.
On top of that, we’re talking about extreme sexual practices that would not be encountered in a normal homosexual relationship. Only 16% of homosexuals get AIDS, usually those from lower economic classes. The 1/3 of AIDS victims who are IV drug users are serious drug abusers too. When you start cranking drugs into your veins, you are serious, but AIDS is being blamed on a virus transmitted by needles while the more apparent drug cause is being overlooked. IV drug users not only abuse their bodies with drugs, they suffer from malnutrition and a lack of sanitation.
Many of the opportunistic infection known collectively as AIDS can be accounted for in other ways. Tuberculosis, for example, has a known cause and a traditional treatment. If HIV is present, the victim is pumped full of deadly chemicals to kill a virus that is thought to be there. I say, ‘thought to be’ there because the tests for HIV do not check for a virus but for antibodies thought to be produced by a virus. No one has ever isolated the virus or purefied it, and it cannot be tested for directly.
On top of the amyl nitrate, the homosexuals were doing other designer drugs, consumed in a party atmosphere till early in the morning. Drugs are a known immune system depressant, and combined with a chronic lack of sleep, can seriously depress the immune system. A friend of Freddy Mercury, the Queen rock band member who died of AIDS, achnowledged that Freddy got heavily into the New York homosexual party scene.
So here we have it. Men were having unprotected anal sex, with multiple partners, in which the mouth is involved, while under the influence of several drugs. So what’s the prognosis: it must be a virus. That notion was perpetuated even though many of the symptoms had more in common with other sexually transmitted diseases and bacterial infections.
The problem was dropped in the lap of Robert Gallo, a scientist who was looking for a viral cause for cancer, and he had seriously botched that approach. His theory, that AIDS was caused by a virus, was immediately accepted without peer review.
In North America, 2/3 of the people getting AIDS are still homosexual males. The other third are IV drug users, who go for long periods of time without adequate nutrition. Drugs…anal sex…bacteria…malnutrition…lack of sleep…a possible explanation is staring us right in the face and we’re focused on a virus that has eluded us. Monty Python could not have written the script better?
The infuriating part, is that when good scientists point to the obvious, they are run out of town. AIDS dissident,Peter Duesberg, has essentially lost his position as a professor, being saved only by his tenure. They have reduced him to teaching lab classes and he can’t have graduate students.
In the AGW scenario, we are looking for a cause of warming that amounts to 0.6 C in over a 100 years. It has been established that 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources and that even a doubling of anthropogenic CO2 could produce, at most, a 1.0 C warming.
History backs that up. There has been, at most, a 0.5 C increase in warming since the end of WWII, even though CO2 levels have increased steadily. We now know that warming has leveled off since 1998 and we have been warned by a May 2008 paper not to expect more warming till 2016.
The HIV/AIDS theory drives a multi-billion dollar industry without one paper that demonstrates how it works. Cash prizes have been offered for proof and no one has collected. The theory has been in place for 25 years and has done no good whatsoever healthwise. How long must we endure this AGW theory, with no proof, before we start considering alternative theories? It has been on the go for 20 years now, half of them with no net warming.
If the AGW theory was one of several theories, and there was equal enthusiasm shown for the other theories, in a spirit of scientific cooperation, that would be one thing. All you need to do is look at the one-dimensional science done in HIV/AIDS research to see where this AGW-only theory is headed.
AT the turn of the 1900’s, there was an outbreak of pellagra in the southern United States. Circa 1915, a US health officer was sent to investigate and he immediately identified the problem as being an inadequate diet. Meantime, the health and scientific community persisted in looking for a bacterial or viral cause. It took them 30 years to stop that pursuit, and only after it was learned that pellagra was caused by a deficiency of B-vitamins. In other words, the cause was identified in the early stages by one man and ignored by a majority for 30 years
How long must we go on beating our heads against the wall before we learn? At this time, the evidence supporting the AGW theory is too weak. Justifying the pursuit of it alone, based on a ‘best-theory’ basis, or a ‘doing something is better than nothing’ basis, is just plain dumb given what I have described above. Why don’t we carry on with a proper scientific approach, using the broad spectrum of scientific research at our disposal?
I think there are no papers to support the AGW theory because the theory is either wrong or there are unknown factors involved. Panicking and imposing a paradigm is not the solution, as people are slowly learning with the HIV/AIDS theory.
Gordon…
What a load of rubbish.
You’re right, Gordon. The AGW theory is about as good as the HIV/AIDS theory.
Glad to hear someone come out and say it.
wilful…Hansen is an activist who was seriously wrong in the past, Anything he said before 2003, and after that, was irrelevant. In 2003 he admitted that future warming would be modest, the only factual statement he has ever made.
He was wrong about the Arctic and the Antarctic, claiming they would both warm dramatically. The Antarctic has cooled and he now blames the Arctic warming on ‘soot’. He has delusions about glaciers melting based on a remote theory that it happened in the past. He’s in the class of scientist, like Carl Sagan, who talk about the Big Bang as if it actually happened.
Schmidt is a mathematician and a computer modeler, not an atmospheric physicist. He works for Hansen, which makes him even more irrelevant. Hansen is an astrophysicist with no formal training in the atmosphere that I can see. He’s a modeler too, going so far as to alter the historical temperature record to make his models appear to be reliable.
Santer is not believable either, so why should I bother reading any of the pseudo-scientists you list?
In fact, you’re irrelevant too.
NT…said “Gordon…What a load of rubbish”.
NT…exactly the kind of come back I’d expect from someone who doesn’t have the wheretofore to read what I’ve said and verify it. I was hoping for something a little more…ahem…intelligent.
No hard feelings, mate.
Nexus6 said “The AGW theory is about as good as the HIV/AIDS theory”.
When I first cottoned on to the AGW theory, my first impression was, “Oh, no…not this again”.
“… who talk about the Big Bang as if it actually happened …”
Gordon,
So I take it:
* AGW is nonsense
* HIV is not caused by AIDS
* There was no such thing as a Big Bang 14-odd billion years ago
Have you considered a careful examination of the proofs that it is impossible to trisect the angle using a ruler and straightedge?
Michael Duffy’s money is safe; wilful must be related to luke with that torrent of papers, most done by Hansen; Hansen is disqualified by his hysteria, hyperbole, predictive failures and Koutsoyiannis.
The historical base of AGW is Arrhenius; but Arrhenius’s law is about water; it is assumed that CO2 operates the same way, but it doesn’t operate the same way as water vapor in respect of atmospheric interaction with IR.
Callendar; only works if his assumption that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were lower than today and evenly mixed; neither assumption is correct; anyone following Steve Short’s posts on the hemispheric asymmetry in CO2 atmospheric content will know that; in addition this paper sums up the historical fallacy;
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
Beck gets bad press especially of the ad hom kind; the 2 most virulent attacks were by RC and eli; RC didn’t understand that Beck was looking at regional differences, which is natural because RC, like AGW supporters generally, is locked into an ave temp/uniform CO2 mix mindset; eli’s critique was a sort of ad hom directed at the older methods of collecting CO2 samples which Beck has rebutted.
As to CO2 at the quantum level; a CO2 molecule will occasionally absorb an IR photon; the CO2 molecule will reemit and through conduction transfer kinetic energy to another particle; the CO2 molecule will therefore undergo a net energy reduction and will reduce layer heat content; as far as I know none of the listed papers on how CO2 heats have addressed this basic fact.
CO2 at the macro level; the argument is that anthropogenic CO2 is putting extra, that is above the natural CO2 flux, CO2 into the atmosphere, and as a matter of logic must be contributing something disruptive due to this extra, something. Looking briefly at Miscolczi and his rebuttal of the semi-infinite ever extending vertically troposphere/photosphere, something which is fundamental to AGW and has been promulgated by Weart at RC and recently by Neal King in a fairly erudite series of posts at Niche Modelling; Miscolczi says that the need for such an atmospheric model is redundant because of various laws of equilibrium such as conservation of energy, Kirchhoff’s and the Virial Theorem; an implicit part of this is the connection between the rotational/kinetic energy of the rotating earth and the counterbalancing effect of the heavy atmosphere; when the anhtropogenic CO2 was stored safely in the crust it added to the weight and therefore rotational energy of the Earth; when released its weight has been transferred to the atmosphere increasing its potential energy; the loss to the earth has been gained by the atmosphere; the previously heavier Earth had more rotational energy to express in the atmosphere, but that has now been transferred to the atmosphere in the form of potential energy; the system is still in equlibrium and both the Virial Theorem and the Equipartition Principle are satisfied.
The extra CO2 cannot have any overall forcing effect.
It’s the same with evolution too, Gordon. I mean: show me a paper that proves evolution. Evolution, HIV/AIDS, AGW….all about as good as each other, theory wise.
I want my money Duffy !
Surprising not to see Quiggin put up his paw to fetch 1,000 bucks. I would have thought it was the easiest money he’s ever made.
There isn’t a single paper published that conclusively demonstrates CO2 leading temperature. Sure, there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, which is CO2 following temperature.
Furthermore, Steve McIntyre is still searching for an engineering quality exposition of how 2 X CO2 = 2.5C. Can anybody help? The IPCC can’t or won’t.
Given that Steve McIntyre first made his request perhaps 12 months ago, and still doesn’t have an engineering quality exposition of how a doubling of CO2 levels can lead to a 2.5-3.0 deg C increase in Global Mean Temperature, I think we are pretty safe in saying that there isn’t one.
In fact, a skeptic feeling philanthropic could feel pretty safe offering $50k for the party coming up with the proof. Fact is, it isn’t there. It seems that the physics can get you to about a 1 deg warming, but the rest (guess what) is done by models ASSUMING positive feedbacks that deliver the desired outcome.
And we are in the process of imposing very significant additional costs on families to deal with CO2!! Lets see the AGW ‘team’ get their act together on this. Fact is, they can’t.
mondo, I read Paul’s comment, and had a little look on the Climate Audit to see if someone had suggested the obvious; “read a textbook”.
There were some loose suggestions made in this regard, but it appears that Steve does not want a textbook. So what does he want? It seems that there’s no definition of what an “engineering quality” report is. Indeed we get:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2528
Neal J. King: … If you look along this thread, Steve McIntyre has commented about 3 times that he did not agree with someone’s view of what was meant by an “engineering study “or “engineering-quality” document (and I wasn’t even one of the 3 he was disagreeing with). I infer from this that that term does not have a universally accepted meaning among this audience. … Steve McIntyre: Would the information listed above concerning the GCMs satisfy your desire, expressed in the original posting?
Steve McIntyre: … At this point, I’m not sure that I can precisely categorize the differences or say exactly what I think should be included in a comprehensive report. Making specs is never a small job. …
So I think what we’ve waited for these 12 months (and what we’re still waiting for) is a definition of an engineering quality report.
For the rest of us, I’d suggest starting with a textbook.
Cohenite, you really believe Beck?
Ok, several questions.
Why don’t current levels fluctuate like Beck says they did in the past?
What controls did the measuring scientists use?
Did you know that CO2 levels in large cities are far larger than in rural areas?
Are you aware that CO2 levels indoors are far higher than outdoors?
Why is Beck the only one who writes this nonsense?
Why is he not being cited by anyone?
“As to CO2 at the quantum level; a CO2 molecule will occasionally absorb an IR photon; the CO2 molecule will reemit and through conduction transfer kinetic energy to another particle; the CO2 molecule will therefore undergo a net energy reduction and will reduce layer heat content; as far as I know none of the listed papers on how CO2 heats have addressed this basic fact.”
This is hilarious. Especially the net reduction in heat bit… If the photon was not absorbed by the CO2 molecule it would have escaped into space. THEREFORE there is a net gain to the systems, not loss. Even if the energy transfer is only 10% efficient, it’s still a gain.
The rest of your post is nonsense. How much weight do you think Carbonates add to the crust? They’re not a particularly dense material. It like imagination land physics. A kind of physics where you ignore the actual properties of a compound and then make up new ones.
NT – “The rest of your post is nonsense. How much weight do you think Carbonates add to the crust? They’re not a particularly dense material. It like imagination land physics. A kind of physics where you ignore the actual properties of a compound and then make up new ones.”
Bread and butter for these people NT. You have not even seen Louis’s posts yet – they’re worth waiting for!
BTW we call it nu-physics here.
Anyone want to nominate a textbook that demonstrates the effect of adding CO2 to a complex, non-linear, chaotic, not fully understood climate system?
The place you would most expect to find a detailed exposition of 2 x CO2 = 2.5C is the IPCC reports, but it isn’t there.
The climatic effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere depends to a large extent on whether feedbacks are positive or negative overall. There is no definitive answer.
NT & Ender; right; no weight in the crust, just millions of tons when it enters the atmosphere, according to you guys, with the capacity to reproduce Venus on Earth. BTW, NT, you’re the expert on rotational ‘heat’; what on Earth is a pulsed heat source? Nu-physics endeed. But here’s a little conundrum. IPCC allocates a forcing of 3.7wm^2 from a doubling of CO2, and a temperature response of 3-4.5C; how certain is the science with that? Read this lot of papers about doubling of CO2 and temp;
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
The science sure looks as though it’s settled doesn’t it lads? Anyway, how much has CO2 gone up, uniformly, over the century? About 40% from its accurately determined 280ppm (mirth). So, we should have expected a temp increase of 1.3-2C. What have we had lads? Spruik it loud, and go and read my post on base periods; zilch would be close, certainly not anything consistent with AGW theory; and here’s the conundrum; if temps haven’t matched the uniform rise in CO2 (more mirth) then either the notion of CO2 forcing is as real as the contribution your posts make to the debate; or the negative feedbacks which Spencer and Monckton etc get castigated by you pleasant folk for, are knocking the stuffing out of the CO2 forcing; all at a time when insolation was pretty high; now its declining and the -ve’s are going to be more pronounced so CO2’s piddling little forcing is going to be further contained.
Ender said…”So did he (Lindzen) publish this ‘reckoning’? Did he publish the calculations or model runs that he used to come to this conclusion?
Sorry, I’m just the messenger. I don’t pretend in any way to have expertise. Here’s an article in which he makes the claim, and I believe it was written in 1992:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf
If you’re interested in the difference of position between realclimate and Lindzen, here’s a debate between Rahmstorf, a contributor to realclimate, and Lindzen:
http://www.junkscience.com/mar08/Lindzen-Rahmstorf-Exchange.pdf
I’d be interested in an intelligent commentary.
Since you mentioned models, here’s what Lindzen thinks of them:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/Lindzen07-EnE-warm-lindz07.pdf
Here’s another on the misinterpreted NAS report of 2001, which Lindzen helped write:
http://www.lava.net/cslater/Lindzen2.htm
I’ve seen claims that CO2 accounts for 26% of the greenhouse effect, but let’s use a bit of common sense, shall we? Water vapour accounts for about 1% of the atmosphere and CO2 about 0.03%. How can anyone possibly translate that ratio into CO2 having 26% of the effect? Only a modeler could come up with numbers like that.
My approach to the debate is to see who is doing the talking. Richard Lindzen is an established atmospheric physicist but his credentials have come under attack, rather unfairly I think, from those trying to discredit his expertise. Gavin Schmidt, for example, infers that Lindzen’s thinking on AGW is old-school and that current modeling theory is ready for textbooks.
I find that scary. Schmidt is a mathematician and he has the arrogance to question a bona fide expert in the field of climate science who has over 40 years experience. If I was in Schmidt’s position, I’d be a whole lot more humble and try to get guy’s like Lindzen to help me understand the atmosphere rather than taking shots at them.
Rahmstorf, from the debate, is an oceanographer, if I remember correctly.
Sorry, that’s gigatonnes, 10^9, so that will be billions of tons.
Paul,
See my second reference above. I needed the first to follow the thermodynamics on which I’m weak.
I critic the first (Hoffmann et al) of the first three papers I listed early today in this thread as a new blog post here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003319.html .
Patrick Caldon said… “Have you considered a careful examination of the proofs that it is impossible to trisect the angle using a ruler and straightedge”?
No…but I can show you how the interior angles of a triangle don’t have to add up to 180 degrees. 🙂
hint: think curvilinear
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to rubbish anything. I realize it’s not wise to dismiss any theory and I’m not trying to claim CO2 has no effect or that HIV doesn’t either. I’m trying to say, that after literally reading for 100’s of hours on each subject, that the current paradigms don’t make a lot of sense to me.
I really don’t know what to think. From reading Jiddu Krishanmurti and David Bohm, I picked up on the notion that one way to truth was to admit I don’t know. I have taken it a little further and I’m willing to admit that ultimately I don’t know anything. Not knowing frees up space to learn.
I find there are lot of scientists out there who seem to know everything and have little room for not being sure. John Christy even pointed out that skepticism is a part of science and Roy Spencer laughs at the mistakes he’s made. Linus Pauling even laughed at his stubborness regarding the DNA molecule that may have cost him a 3rd Nobel.
I took an undergraduate course in astrophysics and we talked about the Big Bang. The evidence for it is scant, and you’d have to have a fetish for theoretical physics to get into it. People in those faculties have to justify their tenure.
The theory is basically about an extremely low level of temperature in the universe that apparently can’t be accounted for. Also, red and blue shifts in the spectrums of stars suggest a motion away from a centre. Other than that, what possible evidence is there of a Big Bang? Or put it this way, how likely was it given what we have observed on or from Earth?
Let’s get real. We can’t say for sure what’s happening on Mars or Venus. Why are we talking about the centre of the universe?
I liked Lucia’s comment on the climate audit thread:
As it appears the 2.5 isn’t an exact number, I can give a mushy answer. It will also explain why I think that if steve milesworthy were to believe this did required an “engineering exposition”, this would be a literature search involving a) going to the library, and b) buttonholing some of the climate scientists to ask them for references.
Here’s are examples of places where I have seen estimates for the sensitivity to CO2 doubling:
1) Hansen et al. 1988 ( the scenario ABC) paper says NASA GISS II says 4.2 C for doubling. That is a GCM and appear to have first been reported in a 1984 paper which I have not read.
2) The Gerri North blog post Steve posted gave a simple radiative balance that then considered the lapse rate in the calculation. Not a GCM.
3) In a little textbook called “A Climate Modeling Primer”, by Henderson-Seller sna McGuffie, chapter 4 discusses “Radiative-Convective” models. The result for sensitivity depends on an assumed lapse rate and some assumptions about humidity. These are 1-d models, not GCM’s. (I think these are a bit like Modtran? I’m not sure.) They cite a Hanse et al. 1981 paper that got S=1.22C, 1.94 C, 1.37 C, and 2.78 C for a variety of different lapse rates/ humidity cloud models. These are all ‘simple’.)
4) Schwartz’s recent paper estimates the sensitivity from an estimated time constant and a heat capacity. He gets something near 1C. Not a GCM.
5) The little text book I have discusses some other simple non-gcm models, but I haven’t found any sensitivities in there. But, if these were disccussed as simple energy balance models, I bet sensitivities were computed with these.
So, yes, the 2.5C number and range partly comes from GCM’s. But I think the reason Annans answer includes all that other stuff is that it doen’t only come from GCM’s.
And “engineering exposition” of all this would basically track down all of these sources, tabulate them etc. It’s not absolutely to bring the circa 1988 GISS II code into compliance with contemporary standards to rput the value for 4.2 C in a table, provide the references etc. If the scope were increased slightly, or some particular novel feature popped out, there might be a journal article in it, but it may be nothing novel will pop-out.
So, for people who need to published in peer-reviewed articles to get promoted, there may be little motive to compile this. So… that’s one of the reasons I suspect climate scientists haven’t all dashed off to do this. But, the information could be useful for the full AGW spectrum ranging from denialists to alarmists.
It might be nice if this sort of thing were available. If Steve Milesworthy were organizing it, I really do think it should be assinged to a student intern as a semester project.
Gordon – “…have you considered that the AGW theory could be wrong? ”
I think you misunderstood my comment – I specifically said, ‘warming effect of water vapor’, not CO2.
Gordon – “calling them cumulative makes little sense”
My bad – I should have said, ‘combined effect’.
So far not even one study makes it. People who aren’t mindless leftists just admit they are wrong when they have no evidence.
“Surprising not to see Quiggin put up his paw to fetch 1,000 bucks. I would have thought it was the easiest money he’s ever made.”
You really have no idea have you? Quiggins got nothing. Neither do the rest of you.
Cohenite.
There’s a difference between a runaway greenhouse effect (on Venus) and what will eventually be an enhanced greenhouse effect on Earth. The Earth’s temperature in paleoclimate models hasn’t exceeded more than 12 degrees higher than today.
NT; you bet there’s a difference; the 96% of the atmosphere on Venus which is CO2 is in the form of a supercritical liquid wallowing on the surface with no impact on atmospheric heating apart from conductive transfer.
Venus is just set up like one big planetary oven. With its super-rotating clouds it would be like the Beijing pool cube with fans on the ceiling, noon all the time and pressurized.
Even taking any greenhouse effect away you would expect it to be a very hot planet with that setup so long as you could maintain that sort of pressure.
“CO2 is in the form of a supercritical liquid wallowing on the surface with no impact on atmospheric heating apart from conductive transfer.”
I’d be interested in what you are saying here. We don’t want to be prejudiced against liquids or liquid-like gasses when it comes to the greenhouse effect do we?
Thats a problem with the current model when speaking of earth. They don’t think of liquid water as a greenhouse substance.
Peter said …”I think you misunderstood my comment – I specifically said, ‘warming effect of water vapor’, not CO2″.
It’s always easy to read too much into a post, or not enough, sorry if I took you wrong.
It seemed to me you were taking the AGW POV that CO2 on it own provides significant warming and that it can’t be seen simply as a feedback mechanism that increases the water vapour, hence warming, in the atmosphere.
I’m not sold on a feedback mechanism operating in the atmosphere since I’m used to a more apparent feedback action like that used in electronic amplifiers. The action of that feedback is essentially instantaneous and effective whereas the feedback infered in the atmosphere seems related more to mathematics and computer models.
I do concede the plausibility of it, but no one has seen it working. In an amflifier, I can actually disconnect the feeback circuit and the amplifier will become unstable. I realize that heat can be measured in W/m.m and differences from expected heats can be noted, but I would not call that an exact science.
Still, I’ll buy into the theory that anthropogenic gases absorb heat radiated from the surface and re-radiate it upward, downward to the surface, and laterally. Somehow, that warms the oceans, which evapourate more water vapour, which adds to the water vapour in the atmosphere. I presume that is the feedback mechanism described in AGW theory.
As Roy Spencer claims, and he is a real climate scientist trained specifically in atmospheric physics, it’s not quite that simple. The transport of warm, moist air into the upper atmosphere is a complex system that results in precipitation and cooling.
I would take that to mean, based on the fact that water vapour is the vehicle of precipitation and the transfer of heat, and that it’s volume far exceeds that of CO2, that it alone is the major factor in greenhouse warming. CO2 is simply a passenger that increases the real warming agent, which is water vapour.
You seem to be saying that CO2 alone could support the greenhouse effect but I wonder how it could do that without the heat transport mechanisms provided by water vapour. The atmosphere on Mars is primarily CO2 and it doesn’t seem to have much of a greenhouse effect.
When you talk about a negative feedback mechanism that is preventing further warming, I am asking you why the temperatures should be warmer than they are at present, even without such a feedback. A negative feedback is presumed by AGW advocates because models are reading too high. They are claiming, in effect, that the models are right and that they are missing something.
Maybe I’ve still got you wrong. Sorry if that’s the case.
Graeme; the surface temp of Venus is 750K, 3 times Earth’s temp of 287K; Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times more massive and 36 times more dense than Earth’s; Venus’s atmospheric weight creates the temp gradient sufficient to produce its surface temp; just as Earth’s atmospheric weight contributes to its surface temp; Venus’s atmosphere is effectively impervious to SW so there is no IR to blackbody out from the surface; Craig O’Neill’s theories on how Venus got cooked are interesting; he postulates episodic overturn with accompanying volcanic activity producing an atmosphere devoid of water; it annoys me that Venus is continually trundled out by AGW obscurantists to justify their apocalyptic predictions; there is no similarity at all; but the presence of CO2 as a liquid on Venus clearly establishs that CO2 is not an agent of heating or greenhouse, just as the cold atmosphere of Mars with its 95% CO2 content also does.
Graeme,
The current model does indeed think of liquid water (of sufficient depth) as a greenhouse substance, hence the fuss about sea-ice loss. Less sea-ice means more liquid water (of sufficient depth) at the surface.
Gordon,
Firstly, let me state that I’m firmly in the ‘skeptic’ camp – mainly because the ‘science’ I’ve seen from the AGW camp is shaky, to say the least. That said, I’m open-minded enough to say I’d consider changing my views should some solid science start emanating from that particular direction. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Allow me to put my argument another way: let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that CO2, by itself, does cause a significant rise in temperature. If this was proven false then the whole AGW argument would fall apart and this discussion would be moot.
This temperature rise is what, it is said, makes the difference between a frigid, uninhabitable, world and that which we live in. So let’s just say that CO2 lifts the temperature from -18c to 2c, above which point water vapor can exist. That makes the contribution of CO2, without feedbacks, at least 20c (let’s just peg it at 20c)
Let’s now say that, as water vapor absorbs a much wider IR spectrum and its concentration is a lot higher, the warming from it, without feedback, would be 2 to 3 times that of CO2, ie 40c to 60c.
This would make the average global temperature, from water vapor alone, around 20c to 40c, and, with a CO2 baseline of around 0c, around 40c to 60c. The fact that this isn’t so points to a large negative feedback (and yes, I’m also well acquainted with feedback in electronic amplifiers)
Either that, or the greenhouse effect of CO2 and water vapor is insignificant – in which case the AGW theory bites the dust anyway.
You’re right about the feedback mechanism described in AGW theory although, like you, I’m very skeptical of it. If CO2, and water vapor, absorbed and re-radiated energy received from the ocean surface, that re-radiated energy cannot warm the ocean surface any more, for that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Another vehicle for heat transfer from the surface, which hardly ever gets mentioned, is conduction. Anyone who’s ever tried to walk barefoot on a beach on a sunny day will be painfully aware that the surface can get very hot – far hotter than the atmosphere above it. This heat conducts directly to the air in contact with it, from where it’s transported upwards by convection. Now, if the CO2 (and/or water vapor) in this air is warmed by this conduction/convection to a higher temperature than it could attain by absorption of IR from the surface, then it cannot be warmed any further by the latter (2nd law of thermodynamics again) In a similar vein, if the temperature of the surrounding air is already warmed by the greenhouse effect of the water vapor, the CO2 cannot warm it any further.
Hope this makes things a bit clearer.
Gordon Roberton.
Before I changed horses and entered postgraduate and then professional work in ecology and population biology, I worked for a decade and a half in immunology, oncology and pharmacology. During that time I spent three years diagnosing immunological disorders, including HIV infection. And let me say categorically – your comprehension of the immune system is patently absent.
You obviously have no acquaintance with the vast body of literature on HIV, nor even on basic immunology. Your sources are a montage of nutcase paranoia, misapprehension, political agenda, intolerant sociology and plain ignorance.
Make no mistake: successful infection with the human immunodeficiency virus leads sooner or later to the collapse of the immune system, through mechanisms that are well understood. There are a few exceptional individuals who seem to maintain health without antiviral treatment, and in these cases a genetic variation appears to lie at the cause.
If you dispute that HIV results in AIDS, it would be easy to arrange for you to be infected with the virus should you wish to prove your point – according to your claim you would be entirely safe. Would you be prepared to go to this extreme?
Oh, and Mullis and Duesberg are two examples of good scientists who have gone ’emeritus’, and in the scietific community their whackiness is routinely acknowledged. Their infallibility is only promoted by the ignorant lay public who have no idea of where their science has derailed.
Gordon Roberton.
Before I changed horses and entered postgraduate and then professional work in ecology and population biology, I worked for a decade and a half in immunology, oncology and pharmacology. During that time I spent three years diagnosing immunological disorders, including HIV infection. And let me say categorically – your comprehension of the immune system is patently absent.
You obviously have no acquaintance with the vast body of literature on HIV, nor even on basic immunology. Your sources are a montage of nutcase paranoia, misapprehension, political agenda, intolerant sociology and plain ignorance.
Make no mistake: successful infection with the human immunodeficiency virus leads sooner or later to the collapse of the immune system, through mechanisms that are well understood. There are a few exceptional individuals who seem to maintain health without antiviral treatment, and in these cases a genetic variation appears to lie at the cause.
If you dispute that HIV results in AIDS, it would be easy to arrange for you to be infected with the virus should you wish to prove your point – according to your claim you would be entirely safe. Would you be prepared to go to this extreme?
Oh, and Mullis and Duesberg are two examples of good scientists who have gone ’emeritus’, and in the scietific community their whackiness is routinely acknowledged. Their infallibility is only promoted by the ignorant lay public who have no idea of where their science has derailed.
I find this all quite odd.
Let’s say I’m directed to a blog. It has been around for several years and seems to have as its main purpose the discrediting of mainstream climate science.
Let’s now say that the blog’s owner appears not to have read any of the seminal literature in the history of climate science. Fair enough, we see that all the time from anti-science ignoramuses of the fundamentalist kind, not to mention obvious liars and propagandists.
It appears, however, that the owner of this blog is a scientist with a PhD. How can this be? Surely such a person would do the sort of reading up on a subject expected of an interested layperson, let alone a qualified scientist, before criticising it? If I were to disagree about a current issue in, say, biology, I would read up on the basics, wouldn’t I?
So, what is this thread about? It can’t be what it purports to be, can it?
Those of you who’ve submitted references need to realise that Duffy won’t pay up. His offer, like Dr Marohasy’s disingenuous initial request, was not made in good faith.
“Thats a problem with the current model when speaking of earth. They don’t think of liquid water as a greenhouse substance.”
You have no idea what they think.
No in fact the idea of water as a greenhouse substance is specifically excluded from alarmist models. So you are just lying again and you are an idiot.
No in fact David you are just lying filth. But if you think otherwise RESUBMIT THE BREAKTHROUGH STUDY TO ME.
And believe me if you have indeed come up with the evidence I will lobby Michael Duffy to come good and I’ll chuch in some minor amount of cash myself.
But thats not going to happen because you are lying. No-ones come up with the empirical evidence.
“It appears, however, that the owner of this blog is a scientist with a PhD. How can this be? Surely such a person would do the sort of reading up on a subject expected of an interested layperson, let alone a qualified scientist, before criticising it? If I were to disagree about a current issue in, say, biology, I would read up on the basics, wouldn’t I?”
Either you have the evidence or you are a stupid slut.
So lets have the evidence and lets have it now.
The answer to your conundrum is that she hadn’t read the evidence because no-ones read the evidence BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ISN’T THERE. You haven’t read it either. So why haven’t you read it hey?
Are you not beating yourself over the head for not having read it?
You should commit Hari Kari right now to make up for your dishonour but the fact is you could not have read the evidence BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE you stupid gang moll whore.
“Before I changed horses and entered postgraduate and then professional work in ecology and population biology, I worked for a decade and a half in immunology, oncology and pharmacology. During that time I spent three years diagnosing immunological disorders, including HIV infection. And let me say categorically – your comprehension of the immune system is patently absent.”
Be that as it may. I’m not going to take a position.
But the fact is you are an alarmist. In which case you know jack shit about science and are in no position to lecture anyone on anything at all.
Bang up job your crowd did. Seeing as Aids (a hard disease to catch) is still with us in spades. You are just in no position to be arrogant. You are in fact a dim bulb.
“Graeme,
The current model does indeed think of liquid water (of sufficient depth) as a greenhouse substance, hence the fuss about sea-ice loss. Less sea-ice means more liquid water (of sufficient depth) at the surface.”
No it doesn’t you are lying. It thinks of water as something separate. A heat sink. A surface with a certain Albedo. Never as a greenhouse substance. Water doesn’t come into any bogus “radiative heat balance” equation except insofar as its alleged Albedo is concerned.
“Graeme; the surface temp of Venus is 750K, 3 times Earth’s temp of 287K; Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times more massive and 36 times more dense than Earth’s; Venus’s atmospheric weight creates the temp gradient sufficient to produce its surface temp; just as Earth’s atmospheric weight contributes to its surface temp; Venus’s atmosphere is effectively impervious to SW so there is no IR to blackbody out from the surface; Craig O’Neill’s theories on how Venus got cooked are interesting; he postulates episodic overturn with accompanying volcanic activity producing an atmosphere devoid of water; it annoys me that Venus is continually trundled out by AGW obscurantists to justify their apocalyptic predictions; there is no similarity at all; but the presence of CO2 as a liquid on Venus clearly establishs that CO2 is not an agent of heating or greenhouse, just as the cold atmosphere of Mars with its 95% CO2 content also does.”
Right. That all sounds good. I’ve got nothing much to add to it. Except that you say that Venus’ atmosphere is impervious to Shortwave radiation right? But that surely is the same as Venus’ atmosphere deftly blocking that radiation surely?
So there would have to be some sort of gas-colour adjustment right?
Look you might disagree but tell me where I’m coming off the beam.
I didn’t know about anyones theory of the Venus cooking. I just looked at the situation of the super-rotation of the clouds. The bloke who started the other thread spoke of “overturning”. I think this is actually the key. I was calling it TUNNELING-UNDER.
I am making the claim that heat budgets can build particularly when the hot substance, which would normally rise, is forced to tunnel back under.
So I suspect there is this tunneling under going on under the surface of Venus. Beneath the first bank of clouds, between two banks of clouds and so forth.
So I don’t see it as a radiative heat balance so much as a heat budget thats built up over time. And the “wind” system must be akin to what you would want for a really you-beaut furnace.
You can sort of see it in your minds eye with the backwards rotation, the super-rotation in the same direction with the clouds. And the kind of tunneling under that this would imply with the way the air moved under the clouds.
The picture you had was of a surface that was quite static right? Like right down there on the ground the CO2 is acting like some sort of heavy-liquid? Is that right?
Its as if the heat might as well be underground where your picture is concerned right? I mean its no big deal if the air is the temperature of magma almost. Since we have those sorts of temperatures with those sorts of pressures right here on earth. But we just have them underground right?
Would your thinking be somewhat akin to this?
“Venus’s atmospheric weight creates the temp gradient sufficient to produce its surface temp; just as Earth’s atmospheric weight contributes to its surface temp”
This actually seems to be the key point to me. This seems so very plausible. How do you explain it to people?
Do you explain that one ought not be prejudiced between magma/liquids/gasses and that the heat will tend to accumulate where the pressures are appropriate and the liquid substance cannot readily turn to gas and take that latent heat away?
I almost wish that no-one had ever even heard of this greenhouse effect jive. So they had to think through everything else that was going on.
Then at some later date they might discover this alleged effect. And it could lead to some minor adjustment after all other considerations were considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hey if you are saying that this CO2 is in ACTUAL LIQUID FORM rather than just a compressed gas that acts in somewhat liquid-like ways……. then surely it would be subject to some sort of evaporation. Which would have consequences.
But are you instead saying that this CO2 has liquid-like properties given the intense pressure?
“For the rest of us, I’d suggest starting with a textbook.”
No thats just so idiotic. The problem isn’t with McIntyre its with you. The problem isn’t with definitions its with the total lack of evidence.
Can I request that you stop being an idiot?
If thats not to much to ask?
If you were not being an idiot then you could submit a report and I’d tell you if I thought it was to the required standard. But no alarmist line-ball reports exist.
“BTW when are you handing out the cash Duffy? Expect to here an annoucement on CP this evening. Perhaps you can donate to the “Human Fund”, I think George Costanza set it up.”
LISTEN YOU MORON. SHOW UP WITH THE EVIDENCE.
Lets have it now.
Its just terrible that we have to be walking around and breathing the same air with people as stupid as this fellow Patrick.
Graeme Bird.
I reckon you’d have to wear a bib, what with all of your foaming at the mouth. You really need to cool down. I suggest dunking your head three times in a bucket of ice-cold water, and lifting it out twice.
Your response to my simple observation that HIV DOES cause AIDS, and that to deny this fact because one is ignorant of fundamental immunology, is completely bizarre, and I care not a whit that you tried to call my refutation of Robertson’s garbage conspiracy theory ‘arrogance’. If setting a buffoon like him straight is arrogance, so be it. Any rational person would recognise such a correction as a justifiable calling-out of an idiot’s ignorance.
And contrary to your rant, I am indeed in a position to lecture someone like Robertson on matters immunological.
Get over it.
As a person with three teriary qualifications in science, and a PhD about to join the current trio testamures already in the bottom drawer, I would humbly suggest that I know rather more than ‘jack shit’ about science.
However, it is patently obvious to any and all who read your vituperous sprays that you yourself are perhaps rather less benefited of a basic scientific education.
You are an expert potty-mouth though. Your mother must be so proud.
testing
Just come up with the evidence or make the retraction Bernard.
Graeme Bird.
I see no reason to retract anything I have said on this thread, and so it all stands: my comments on the immunology of HIV, my capacity to thus comment, and my observations of your behaviour.
Everything.
Except perhaps that your mother must be proud – after careful consideration I can see that she might not actually be that proud of her son…
Graeme Bird, be _very_ careful when you accuse someone of being a liar. I’ve had interaction with Michael Duffy around the issue of intellectual integrity, and he comes up short. Also, Dr Marohasy has made this same request, in the same little-girl tone, a number of times in the past and been given the references she asked for. She’s wilfully ignorant.