Reading the following storyI picked  the comment (most of the other ones agree with the story, but I am specifically focusing here on Dan Pangburn’s work)by Dan Pangburn whose work I had already heard about, and followed it in part as it follows  to share the story; I am not claiming that there is no global warming phenomenon, albeit I do assert that its potential consequences are greatly exaggerated, nor am I saying that it is not, including those exaggerated imaginary (speculative may be another, more polite word for the same thing…) aspects at least partially (hu)man made, but what aI do affirm here, as a Jew who believes in  the Creator of this and all worlds, is that global warming is not necessarily evil, nor are other phenomena popular with the doomsayers, such as the turning on of the LHC yesterday, which I was waiting for without the slightest  fear of mishap or mayhem.

Note to NASA: Fire Dr. James Hansen, now.

10 09 2008

https://i2.wp.com/graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/dotearth/posts/hansen190.jpg

Dr. James Hansen of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

I’ve been wrestling with this topic for hours now as to how to best present it in this forum.  I finally decided to simply just write it as I see it.

It has been an ugly day for law and common sense in the world. Vandalism in the name of ecological causes is now “ok” thanks in part to Dr. James Hansen, of NASA GISS coming to the defense of eco-vandals.  See the second story below. Now, encouraged by this “victory” that gives a sanction to eco-vandalism in the UK, how many more shall we see? And if one of these people is injured and kills themselves or others in the process of the next stunt? What then? Who is responsible?

Certainly I want a cleaner world, and better energy resources with focus on the future. But, sanctioning vandalism for these causes is not the way to get there. What do I want from NASA as a taxpayer? Science, solutions, and inspiring ideas turned into reality. I don’t want political activism in the name of science.

After thinking awhile about this, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

1- A NASA scientist siding with vandalism as a “lawful excuse” is an inappropriate abuse of the position. It was a question of law, not of science.

2- Dr. Hansen cannot separate himself from the agency as private citizen in this case, because he was brought in as an “expert witness”. Even if he paid his own way and took personal time, his presence was based on taxpayer funded research.

3- It appears Dr. Hansen has violated the code of ethics posted on the NASA Office of General Council webpage.

From the Goddard Institute for Space Studies web page:  GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC’s Sciences and Exploration Directorate. Thus Hansen falls under these ethics rules.

Specifically, Dr. Hansen’s defense of vandalism in the name of a cause he believes in fails under the NASA Misuse of position rule. If he received compensation of any kind, such as airfare, rooms, board etc. to appear as a NASA expert, he would also be breaking other NASA conduct rules.

4- As keeper of data, specifically the GISTEMP dataset, he has now brought the impartiality of that data into question due to his activism in areas unrelated to scientific research.

Certainly Dr. Hansen has a body of work that is impressive, there is no disputing that. But it is time for Dr. Jim Hansen to go. Thanks to him, GISS as a dataset is no longer impartial. We have potential bias from the gatekeeper of the data that can’t be separated from the data. If he can come to the defense of lawbreakers in the name of his global warming cause, then it is an even easier jump to allow that same bias to creep into scientific data he is responsible for and his conclusions drawn from that data.

If you feel the same way, your recourse is to write to

Michael D. Griffin
Administrator

c/o NASA Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)

Or use the online submission form

Dan Pangburn (21:06:51) :Hardly anyone is saying that the planet didn’t get warmer during the 20th century. Well, there is that question of whether UHI has been correctly accounted for, and the puzzling lack of concurrence of ground based data with satellite data. The media, politicians and businesses have been responding to pronouncements by the alarmists. The extant issue is whether humans had anything significant to do with Global Warming and whether they can do anything about it. A rigorous challenge of the complete picture shows that they didn’t and they can’t.

Continued Global Warming would have been a good thing, except for the political dopiness, but lately it has certainly changed character and the temperature trend may have changed direction again. Look at the numbers provided by NOAA (the other agencies tell similar stories). According to NOAA data (not their agenda-biased, thanks to Hansen, narrative reports), for the first 7 months of 2008 the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 13.5% of the total linearized increase during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 13.6% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

But understanding global climate does not come from examining something so brief as the last decade, or even the last century. The ONLY predictors of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming are Global Climate Models (aka General Circulation Models) or GCMs. The only existing exact, correct computer of global climate is the planet itself. The output of this computer is recorded as climate history.

Apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. This causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. (The web site is controlled by Middlebury, not me.) Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback from water vapor does not exist.

Most of the infrared radiation energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules is immediately shared with the thousands of times more numerous nitrogen and oxygen molecules. In other words, nearly all of the absorbed infrared energy is thermalized. That is what makes the air feel warm. Calculations (see http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf ) show that half of the infrared energy from the surface that ever gets absorbed gets absorbed within 24 meters of the surface. The absorbed energy is then primarily carried up by atmospheric convection currents and radiated to space by clouds and other emitters. This mechanism is well understood by scientists that are knowledgeable in optical spectroscopy. The process is not yet adequately accounted for in the GCMs. These faulty GCMs are the ONLY predictors of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming. Climate history refutes significant net positive feedback and thus refutes Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The multi-billion dollar government grants for ‘climate research’ depend for their continuation on ominous prediction of looming catastrophe requiring more study. A lot of people have been hoodwinked by this self-serving rhetoric. Many are eager to impose their will on others. Some are positioned to profit from it. An entire industry has evolved that exploits the fear of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The so-called consensus is primarily climatologists who stand to benefit from dire predictions and their followers. Over 31,000 qualified scientists and engineers have signed a document stating that human activity has had no significant influence on climate. The list can be seen at http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php . Compare this to the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.

Group-think bias has corrupted the peer review process of articles related to climate. If the peer reviewers were not mesmerized by their incomplete computer programs and corrupted by the desire for job security there might be less bias.

No one can be sure where the average global temperature will go from here. According to Vostok ice core data it has been warmer than now four other times during the Holocene (the last 11,000 or so years) so eventual temporary further rise is not out of the question. However, the change in pattern since 2001, the recent downtrend, and continued quiet sun are all indicating that the planet is in for a continuation of the cooling trend. The huge heat sink of the oceans will cause the cooling to be gradual, as was the warming.

I add here a short version of Dan Pangburn’s study from the http://www.middlebury.net website, and will welcome intelligent comments, whether they agree or disagree, but will not publish any of the fanatic reactions which are likely to come, because they are not in the true interest of science; if evolution is entitled to be discussed so is creation, and I firmly endorse and commend Sara Palin for saying so.

15 Mar 2008

Historical Data on Global Warming
provided by U.S. Government Agencies

By Dan Pangburn, P.E.

I have been researching the global warming issue for months. I am a licensed Mechanical Engineer with an MSc in Mechanical Engineering. The following is a brief verbal description of some of my sources and findings with graphics that show these findings.

Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. But the observation that ice is melting, which can look dramatic on TV, does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans have or ever can have a significant influence on climate such as by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Avoid the group-think ‘consensus science’ and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows:

The temperature1 has varied substantially while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere2 exhibits a smooth progressive rise. Note on this graph that prior to about 1910, and again from 1944 to about 1976, temperature showed a decreasing trend while atmospheric carbon dioxide level was increasing. Thus, as shown on this graph, until 1998 the average global temperature trend and atmospheric carbon dioxide level went in the same direction about half the time and in opposite directions the other half. The temperature rise that received so much attention and contributed to the Global Warming mistake lasted for about 22 years from 1976 to 1998. The temperature stopped significant increase in 1998. According to NOAA data, the average global temperature trended down during 2007 to lower than it was in 1998. This down-trend continues with the average for the first two months of 2008 being substantially lower.

1. Temperature from 1880 through 2007 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html with most recent by month at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html

2. Carbon dioxide level through 2004 from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ and from 2004 to current from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

In the previous graph it appears that since 1976 the increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the average global temperature to rise. However, a close look at the graph below3,4 reveals the fact that, typically in the past, global average temperature rose or fell before the carbon dioxide level changed.

Advocates of the idea that recent human activity has caused global warming rationalize this lag of carbon dioxide change to temperature change, which existed before human activity was an issue, with the theory that something external started the temperature change, the temperature change caused carbon dioxide change and then a positive feed back effect from the added atmospheric carbon dioxide caused the temperature change to continue. However, as the temperature record shows, temperature change began and ended at many different temperature levels. This would not be possible with significant positive feedback. Thus significant positive feedback did not exist then and does not exist now. Back then the atmospheric carbon dioxide increased as the ocean temperature increased driving out dissolved carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is all a result of burning fossil fuel. Added carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. Global average temperature change must be driven by factors other than carbon dioxide level.

Although the time scale on this graph can make times look close together, the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level typically lagged average earth temperature change by hundreds of years. Note especially the period around 112,000 years ago when the decline in carbon dioxide level lagged the decline in average global temperature by thousands of years. Also on this graph, observe that temperature went up and down quickly and frequently while carbon dioxide level changed comparatively slowly. Note also that this graph is in years before 1999 so the present time is at the left side of the graph.

3. Temperature change (or anomalies per their terminology) are per the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat

4. Carbon dioxide levels from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

This graph also shows that global temperature change is not significantly influenced by atmospheric carbon dioxide level change. Sargasso Sea Surface Temperatures5 were compiled from proxies and reported at Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. These temperatures are corroborated by historical records of colonizing and abandoning Greenland, vineyards in England , freezing of the Themes, etc. Anomalies determined from the Sargasso temperature data (obtained by subtracting 22.6 from all temperatures) agree only crudely with anomalies from Vostok3. Although Sargasso temperatures are corroborated by historical records of events, they may have been heavily influenced by ocean currents and thus be less representative of global average temperature. Sargasso anomalies are shown for the period that they are available.

The Vostok ice core data provide carbon dioxide level4 only until about 340 BC. More recent data on atmospheric carbon dioxide level is provided by ice cores from Law Dome6, Antarctica and atmospheric sampling at Mauna Loa . Vostok and Law Dome carbon dioxide data are both plotted on the following graph along with the Vostok3, Sargasso and recent1 temperature data. This shows that, during the current interglacial period, temperature changes occur while carbon dioxide level undergoes little change until about 1750AD. This demonstrates that global temperature change does not depend on atmospheric carbon dioxide level change. As shown on the previous graph, if temperature change was maintained long enough the atmospheric carbon dioxide level followed.

5. Sargasso SST ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/keigwin1996/

6. Law Dome carbon dioxide data http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat

This graph is a higher-resolution time scale of the previous graph showing detail of the last 1000 years with several other sources of carbon dioxide data added. The added data corroborate the Law Dome data and continue measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide level to the present time from Mauna Loa7. This graph shows that the average global temperature 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and the recent rate of temperature change is not unusual. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were slightly lower than in 1998 and the average temperature for the first two months of 2008 is substantially lower.

For most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present8,9. The planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago10 when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times higher than now.

The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. Actions to control the amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity. These actions put freedom and prosperity at risk.

7. Data through 2006 is at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/ other sources through 2007 at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ Mauna Loa recent months at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

8. Raw science report http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

9. Includes easier-to-read graph which uses the appropriate curve from 8 plus a temperature curve. http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html or http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml which appears to come from 8. and only shows carbon dioxide level.

10. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Advertisements