WISDOM#1: ADHEFRENCE TO UNBIASED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IS SOMETHING CALLED “SCIENTIFIC RETICENCE”. THIS KIND OF RETICENT INSISTENCE ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT BELONG IN CLIMATE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH THE URGENT NEED FOR CLIMATE ACTION.

WHAT WE LEARN HERE FROM THE FATHER OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS THAT ADHERENCE TO UNBIASED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY INTERFERES WITH CLIMATE ACTIVISM.

THE CITATION

WISDOM#2: THE ANTICIPATION OF SEA LEVEL RISE DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING THIS LATE INTO THE HOLOCENE INTERGLACIAL MUST BE UNDERSTOOD NOT IN TERMS OF THE HOLOCENE BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PREVIOUS AND MORE VOLATILE INTERGLACIAL, THE EEMIAN.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/06/the-sea-level-rise-issue/

WHAT HE SAYS IN THE VIDEO#1: SO NOW WE’VE GOT WARMING OF MORE THAN 1C RELATIVE TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL. THAT MAKES THE TEMPERATURE FAR ABOVE THE RANGE THAT EXISTED DURING THE PRIOR 11,000 YEARS OF THIS INTERGLACIAL PERIOD. SO WE’RE OUT OF THAT RANGE. IN FACT WE’RE INTO THE RANGE OF THE EEMIAN PERIOD WHICH IS A 120,000 YEARS AGO AND WHICH WAS WARM ENOUGH TO MELT ICE ON ANTARCTICA AND GREENLAND TO RAISE SEA LEVELS 6 TO 9 METERS.

THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE. AS NOTED IN RELATED POSTS LINKED BELOW, THE EEMIAN WAS MUCH HOTTER THAN THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD AND NOAA DATA SHOW THAT THE HOLOCENE CLIMATE OPTIMUM WAS AT LEAST AS WARM AS THE CURRENT WARMING (2021). YET ANOTHER ISSUE HERE IS THE “WARMING SINCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL” MADE MEANINLESS BY THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY WARMING {ETCW} ISSUE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST THAT CAUSED NASA AND JAMES HANSEN TO MOVE THE BEGINNING OF ANTHROPOGENIC GOBAL WARMING TO 1950.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/09/the-etcw-issue-in-climate-science/

WHAT WE LEARN HERE FROM THE FATHER OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS THAT HIS SCIENTIFIC RETICENCE RATIONALE IMPLIES THAT THE GREATER IMPORTANCE OF PUSHING THE FEAR APPEAL CLIMATE ACTION AGENDA MAKES IT NECESSARY TO INDULGE IN OUTRIGHT AND OUTRAGEOUS LIES. {UNLESS OF COURSE, WHAT SEEMS LIKE LIES ARE ACTUALLY TRAGIC IGNORANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO INTERGLACIALS – THE EEMIAN AND THE HOLOCENE}.

THE EEMIAN INTERGLACIAL IS DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST ALONG WITH A BIBLIOGRAPHY THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE EEMIAN WAS MUCH HOTTER THAN THE HOLOCENE.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/21/eemian/

EXCERPT: A significant feature of the Eemian is sea level rise and fluctuations in sea level caused by fluctuations in temperature. Sea level rise of 3 to 6 meters are reported by some authors and 5 to 9 meters by others and is generally attributed to a complete disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and it was likely the main source of the dramatic sea level rise found in the data. Some authors cite sudden warming of 5ºC to 10ºC and “massive surges of icebergs into the North Atlantic” as a perturbation of ocean circulation that was responsible for abrupt climate change in the Eemian. Details of these findings may be found in the Eemian Bibliography presented below.
CONCLUSION: We propose in this post that the fear of ice sheet collapse and devastating sea level rise in the current warming episode described by James Hansen and by other climate scientists can be related to events in the Eemian but not to the post LIA period of the Holocene.

WISDOM#3: THE VENUS MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

WHAT DO I KNOW THAT WOULD CAUSE ME, A RETICENT MID-WESTERN SCIENTIST, TO GET MYSELF ARRESTED IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE? AND WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU KNEW WHAT I KNOW. LET’S START WITH HOW I GOT TO THIS POINT. I WAS LUCKY TO GROW UP AT A TIME WHEN IT WAS NOT DIFFICULT FOR THE CHILD OF A TENANT FARMER TO MAKE HIS WAY TO TH STATE UNIVERSITY AND I WAS REALLY LUCKY TO GO TO THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA WHERE I COULD STUDY UNDER PROFESSOR JAMES VAN ALLEN WHO BUILT INSTRUMENTS FOR THE FIRST AMERICAN SATELLITE. PROFESOR VAN ALLEN TOLD ME ABOUT OBSERVATIONS OF VENUS. THAT THERE WAS INTENSE MICROWAVE RADIATION. DID IT MEAN THAT VENUS HAD AN IONOSPHERE? OR WAS VENUS EXREMELY HOT? THE RIGHT ANSWER, CONFIRME BY THE SOVIET VENERA SPACECRAFT, WAS THAT VENUS WAS VERY HOT, 900F, AND IT WAS KEPT HOT BY A THICK CARBON DIOXIDE ATMOSPHERE. I WAS FORTUNATE TO JOIN NASA WHERE I SUCCESSFULLY PROPOSED AN EXPERIMENT TO FLY TO VENUS. OUR INSTRUMENTS TOOK THIS IMAGE OF THE VEIL OF VENUS WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE A SMOG OF SULFURIC ACID.

RESPONSE: IF THE VENUS MODEL IMPLIES THAT ALL GLOBAL WARMING EVENTS ON EARTH MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS CREATIONS OF RISING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, AND IF RISING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD AS A CREATION OF THE FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, THEN WHAT EXPLAINS THE PRIOR WARMING CYCLES OF THE HOLOCENE? OR OF THE WARMING CYCLES OF THE EEMIAN?

WISDOM#4: THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2

BUT WHILE OUR INSTRUMENT WAS BEING BUILT, I BECAME INVOLVED IN CALCULATIONS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HERE ON EARTH BECAUSE WE REALIZED THAT OUR ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION WAS CHANGING. EVENTUALLY I RESIGNED AS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ON OUR VENUS EXPERIMENT BECAUSE A PLANET CHANGING BEFORE OUR EYES IS MORE INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE CHANGES WILL AFFECT ALL HUMANITY. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HAS BEEN WELL UNDERSTOOD FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. BRITISH PHYSICIST JOHN TINDALL MADE LABORTORY MEASUREMENTS IN THE 1850S OF THE INFRA-RED RADIATION, WHICH IS HEAT, AND HE SHOWED THAT GASES SUCH AS CO2 ABSORB HEAT THUS ACTING LIKE A BLANKET WARMING EARTH’S SURFACE.

I WORKED WITH OTHER SCIENTISTS TO ANALYZE EARTH’S CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS. IN 1981 WE PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN SCIENCE MAGAZINE CONCLUDING THAT THE OBSERVED WARMING OF 0.4C IN THE PRIOR CENTURY WAS CONSISTENT WITH HE GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF INCREASING CO2, THAT EARTH WOULD LIKELY WARM IN THE 1980S AND THAT THE WARMING WOULD EXCEED THE NOISE LEVEL OF RANDOM WEATHER BY THE END OF THE CENTURY. WE ALSO SAID THAT THE 21ST CENTURY WILL SEE SHIFTING CLIMATE ZONES, CREATION OF DROUGHT PRONE REGIONS IN NORTH AMERICA AND ASIA, THE EROSION OF ICE SHEETS, RISING SEA LEVELS, AND OPENING OF THE FABLED NORTHWEST PASSAGE. ALL OF THESE IMPACTS HAVE SINCE HAPPENED OR ARE NOW WELL UNDERWAY. THAT PAPER WAS REPORTED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

THE CURRENT CLIMATE SCIENCE POSITION EXPLAINED IN THE ETCW POST LINKED ABOVE IS THAT THE WARMING IN THE PRIOR CENTURY CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF CO2 DRIVEN GREENHOUSE EFFECT WARMING AS EXPLAINED IN THE ETCW POST LINKED ABOVE. IN FACT IT WAS THE ETCW ISSUE THAT EVENTUALLY CAUSED NASA AND JAMES HANSEN TO MOVE THE START YEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING TO 1950.

WISDOM#5: THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY OF 1988: THIS LED TO ME TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS IN THE 1980S. IT WAS A TESTIMONY IN WHICH I EMPHASIZED THAT GLOBAL WARMING INCREASES BOTH EXTREMES OF THE EARTH’S WATER CYCLE. HEAT WAVES AND DROUGHTS ON ONE HAND DERIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE WARMING BUT ALSO BECAUSE A WARMER ATMOSPHERE HOLDS MORE WATER VAPOR WITH ITS LATENT HEAT, RAINFALL WILL BECOME A MORE EXTREME EVENT. THERE WILL BE STRONGER STORMS AND GREATER FLOODING. BUT GLOBAL WARMING HOOPLA BECAME TIME CONSUMING. AND DETRACTED ME FROM DOING SCIENCE PARTLY BECAUSE I HAD COMPLAINED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE ALTERED MY TESTIMONY (RONALD REAGAN). SO I DECIDED TO GO BACK TO STRICTLY DOING SCIENCE AND LEAVE THE COMMUNICATION TO OTHERS.

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY APPEARS BELOW

EXCERPT FROM THE HANSEN 1988 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/05/09/hansen88/

1. CLAIM: Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements that goes back 100 years. RESPONSE-1: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory about long term trends in global mean surface temperature. A one-year temperature event has no interpretation in this context. RESPONSE-2: In your paper Hansen 1988 and also in the official position of your NASA GISS organization you state that that AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data. If AGW started in 1950, then what is the relevance of the 100-year instrumental record reference period for the temperature record in 1988? RESPONSE-3: Yet another irrelevance of the 100-year instrumental record oof temperature is that the Holocene interglacial started about 10,000 years ago and there have been multiple global warming cycles at centennial and millennial time scales over this period of time prior to the current warming.
2. CLAIM: Causal association requires first that the warming be larger than natural climate variability and, second that the magnitude and nature of the warming be consistent with the greenhouse mechanism. RESPONSE: Neither that the warming is larger than natural climate variability nor that the magnitude of the warming is consistent with the greenhouse mechanism proves causation. For that it must be shown that a statistically significant detrended correlation exists between the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature over a sufficiently long time span. The choice of 30 years as the time span for this evaluation is not supported by the literature where we find that longer time spans are required, preferably longer than 60 years.
3. CLAIM: The warming is more than 0.4 degrees Centigrade for the period 1958-1988. The probability of a chance warming of that magnitude is about 1 percent. So with 99 percent confidence we can state that the warming during this time period is a real warming trend. RESPONSE: The probability is more likely to be 100% that it is a REAL warming trend but none of this serves as evidence that the warming was caused by the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
4. CLAIM: The data suggest somewhat more warming over land and sea ice regions than over open ocean, more warming at high latitudes than at low latitudes, and more warming in the winter than in the summer. In all of these cases, the signal is at best just beginning to emerge, and we need more data. RESPONSE: If the signal is just beginning to emerge and you need more data to figure it out then you don’t really know and your claim to 99% confidence has no basis.
5. CLAIM: Some of these details, such as the northern hemisphere high latitude temperature trends, do not look exactly like the greenhouse effect, but that is expected. There are certainly other climate factors involved in addition to the greenhouse effect. RESPONSE: Lip service to internal climate variability { LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/ } is paid but the issue is completely ignored in the invocation and assessment of the greenhouse effect of CO2 and its alleged dangerous consequences such as extreme weather that places an enormous cost burden on all of humanity to overhaul their energy infrastructure.
6. CLAIM: Altogether the evidence that the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case. In my opinion, that the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now. RESPONSE: “too large to be chance fluctuation” and “similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect” do not constitute ” strong case”. Such suspicions may be sufficient to construct a hypothesis to be tested with data in a hypothesis test in which what is suspected is the alternate hypothesis and its absence is the null hypothesis. No such empirical evidence is presented possibly because none exists.
7. CLAIM: we have used the temperature changes computed in our global climate model to estimate the impact of the greenhouse effect on the frequency of hot summers in Washington, D.C. and Omaha, Nebraska. A hot summer is defined as the hottest one-third of the summers in the 1950 to 1980 period, which is the period the Weather Bureau uses for defining climatology. So, in that period the probability of having a hot summer was 33 percent, but by the 1990s, you can see that the greenhouse effect has increased the probability of a hot summer to somewhere between 55 percent and 70 percent in Washington according to our climate model simulations. RESPONSE#1: The weather bureau does not define the period 1950 to 1980 to define climatology. It simply specifies that the distinction between weather and climate is that weather is short term but climate can only be assessed over periods longer than 30 years. The period 1950 to 1980 has been arbitrarily selected by NASA and by Hansen because, in their own words, “Hansen: because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause” , “NASA: We start in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data“. This kind of bias in the selection of the time span when the theory being tested is the warming “since pre-industrial” caused by the industrial economy is a form of circular reasoning and confirmation bias. It is not science. RESPONSE#2: AGW is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature. It is not possible to relate that warming trend to the extreme form of geographical localization implied in the claim about heat waves in specific cities of the USA as in “frequency of hot summers in Washington, D.C. and Omaha, Nebraska“. Internal climate variability dominates in geographical localization of this kind. Internal Climate Variability is described in a related post. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/ where we find that “Internal variability in the climate system confounds assessment of human-induced climate change and imposes irreducible limits on the accuracy of climate change projections, especially at regional and decadal scales“. It is noted that these internal climate variability studies find that 30-years is too short a time span for the study of AGW climate change and state that the time span must be longer than 30 years preferably 60 years.
8. CLAIM: A study of the temperature in July, for several different years between 1986 and 2029 is computed with our global climate model for the intermediate trace gas scenario B. The results show that there are areas that are warmer than what the greenhouse model predicts and areas that are colder than what the greenhouse model predicts. This is because in the 1980s the greenhouse warming is smaller than the natural variability of the local temperature. This appears to be anomalous with the greenhouse effect but the data for a few decades later in the 19902 show show warmer temperatures across the board. RESPONSE: The NASA and the Hansen position on AGW to this day (September 2020) holds that “Hansen: AGW started in 1950 because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause”, NASA: “AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data”. But the analysis presented by Hansen appears to be AGW went missing in the 1980s only to return in the 1990s. However this analysis by Hansen is flawed because AGW is not a theory that about temperature at any given time or place or any given decade or place. It is a theory only about long term trends in global mean temperature at time scales longer than 30 years preferably 60 years or more.
9. CLAIM: in the late 1980s and in the 1990s our model yields greater than average warming in the Southeast United States and the Midwest. This anomalous result can be explained if the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the United States warms more slowly than the land. This leads to high pressure along the east coast and circulation of warm air north into the Midwest or southeast but there is evidence that the greenhouse effect increases the likelihood of heat wave drought situations in the Southeast and Midwest United States even though we cannot blame a specific drought on the greenhouse effect. Therefore, I believe that it is not a good idea to use the period 1950 to 1980 for the study of AGW climatology. We should see better evidence of the greenhouse effect in the next 10 to 15 years than they were in the period 1950 to 1980. RESPONSE: “That he believes that it is not a good idea to use the period 1950-1980 to study climatology is inconsistent with NASA position and that AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data.
10. CLAIM: There is a need for improving these global climate models, and there is a need for global observations if we’re going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena. RESPONSE: This statement is an admission that the assessment of the AGW presented above as an impact of fossil fuel emissions that has dangerous consequences and that therefore we must stop using fossil fuels to fight climate change was made without the information or the scientific data and arguments needed to make that assessment.

RELATED POST: CRITICAL REVIEW OF NASA’S ROLE IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENT LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/20/nasa-climate/

EXCERPT: CLAIM#1: NASA has unique capabilities because we have the point of view from space. With NASA’s carbon monitoring system you can see the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decreasing in the spring and the summer. Plants and the oceans and the land surface are greening up and pulling the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And then in the fall and in the wintertime you’ll see the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing because plants and animals are releasing the carbon dioxide that was captured during the growing season. RESPONSE TO CLAIM#1: The seasonal cycle in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is well known and has been well known for some time simply from Mauna Loa data. The red and yellow video displays created by a space exploration agency with a $20 billion annual budget are surely more colorful and more entertaining but raw data themselves in their native form is a clearer expression of the essential data for the seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2, particularly so in terms of the magnitudes and numerical values in these cyclical changes.