In 1971, NASA’s top climate experts used a model written by James Hansen, to determine that burning fossil fuels was going to cause a new ice age and flood the world’s coastal cities. They also determined that there was no need to worry about carbon dioxide.
But real scientists never talked about global cooling in the 70’s. That was only Newsweek magazine.
What they never mention when they ridicule scientists like George Kukla that were predicting an ‘ice age’ is that these same scientists had also predicted some global warming prior to the ‘ice age’ AND the ‘ice age’ they were predicting was not a giant glacier steamrolling NYC in 2000, rather they were predicting ‘mini-ice age’ conditions that were prevalent in the middle ages. and so far they were right’ after 2000 global warming stopped, meanwhile powerful blizzards and polar vortices have been the norm especially since 2010.. 2014-15 winter saw heavy snow as far south as texas and central mexico while cuba and florida had their coldest wnters on record-it also snowed in vietnam and ALL OVER the middle eastern deserts, libya,soudi arabia, etc. Those are typical conditions during a mini ice age. Ironically 2020 will be the bottoming out of solar cycle 24-the weakest solar cycle since the early 1800’s.. you can expect some seriously cold blizzards and southern snows then.. it’s just it’s all part of the natural cycle and not this aerosol sun-blocking non-sense these doomsdayers come up with.
“flood the world’s coastal cities”?? I thought Ice-ages(glacial epochs) actually do the opposite: Lower the sea-levels. Something doesn’t add up here.
Coastal flooding from the next ice age? Making more ice increases sea level. They also say that melting ice increases sea level. So, sea level increases no matter what happens?
You being alive is the real problem. Capitalists cause sea levels to rise.
James Hansen: The Boy Who Cried Climate
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/44/ca/af/44caaf9043a94eb6efc234a566918135.jpg
It is mindboggling. This is the first time in history that it has ever snowed in New York and DC. Rock solid proof of SUV caused global warming.
So Hansen was a confidence climatologist (conclimatelogist) prior to the global warming scam. He just changed the narrative of his snake oil claims.
Hansen is a ClimAstrologist reading entrails and tea leaves with the rest of the con artists.
When it comes to climate change, we have to trust our scientists, because they know lots of big scary words
https://0515f2af61d5e3d37aec-a1d11e7882f6a6aa49a62729309b6434.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/2013/06/003_witch-doctor_6402_HDR.jpg
https://0515f2af61d5e3d37aec-a1d11e7882f6a6aa49a62729309b6434.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/2013/06/007_chicken_7122.jpg
Photo Credit: Bryce Alan Flurie, Photographer and Cure Org
“….James Hansen, to determine that burning fossil fuels was going to cause a new ice age and flood the world’s coastal cities….
That right there should have relegated Hansen to the looney tune category with all the rest of the Millerite street corner screechers.
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.
mogur2013’s LIE is directly below.
Give it a rest, you clowns. Hansen didn’t even publish his first climate paper until 5 years later.
In 1976, with four colleagues, I wrote my first paper on climate (Science, 194, 685-690, 1976). Based on the suggestion of Yuk Yung, one of the co-authors, we examined, for the first time, whether several human-made trace gases might have an important greenhouse effect (until then, only carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons had been considered). We found that methane and nitrous oxide were likely to be important, though measurements of how these gases might be changing were not yet available. Starting then I became interested, very interested, in the Earth’s climate; indeed, two years later I resigned as Principal Investigator of an experiment on its way to Venus so that I could devote full time to studies of the Earth’s climate.
So it was a bit of a surprise when I began to be inundated a few days ago with reports that I had issued proclamations five years earlier, in 1971, that the Earth was headed into an ice age.
Here is how this swift-boating works. First on 19 September 2007 a Washington Times article by John McCaslin reported that a 9 July 1971 article by Victor Cohn in the Washington Post had been discovered with the title “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming”. The scientist, S.I. Rasool, is reported as saying that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age”.
This is an old story: Rasool and (Steve) Schneider published a paper in Science on that day noting that if human-made aerosols (small particles in the air) increased by a factor of four, other things being equal, they could cause massive global cooling. At Steve’s 60th birthday celebration I argued that the Rasool and Schneider paper was a useful scientific paper, an example of hypothesis testing, in the spirit of good science. But what is the news today? Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and “Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.”
What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.”
It is a lie to claim that Hansen’s scattering function was a climate “model”. That claim is obviously a disingenuous attempt to label Hansen a two-faced flip-flopper. Yet you clowns will believe anything written in the right wing press.
No one said it was a “climate” model. Where did you get that from?
“In 1971, NASA’s top climate experts used a model written by James Hansen, to determine that burning fossil fuels was going to cause a new ice age and flood the world’s coastal cities. ”
There is no denying that government scientists in the 70s thought global cooling was no the horizon, despite your protestations and bizarre paranoia about the “right wing press”…
…“right wing press”…
Witches, goblins, or Lucifer would make him sound unscientific.
It always amuses me when radical left-wing “scientists” protest the “right wing media” while using their left-wing media buddies in the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere to get their message out. Unfortunately for the left-wing “scientists”, the media cabal has fractured with the rise of the internet, and they haven’t yet come to grips with this new reality.
Nor any reality.
Reading newspaper archives is right wing. QED
…sorry “on the horizon”…
Somebody get into mommy’s “edibles” stash?
OH LOOKLY THE REGRESSIVES ARE REWRITING HISTORY AGAIN!
From Hansen’s CV
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Radiative transfer by doubling very thin layers. Astrophys. J., 155, 565-573, doi:10.1086/149892.
Hansen, J.E., and H. Cheyney, 1969: Theoretical spectral scattering of ice clouds in the near infrared. J. Geophys. Res., 74, 3337-3346.
All those sinister looking abbreviations. Probably some right-wing code intended to discredit James Hansen.
Stark Dickflüssig Look at this one a full ten years before the claimed 1976 AND on dust particles in the atmosphere.
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.
Wow! Who has ever heard of a criminal claiming innocence? That never happens.
BTW, where is the documentation of Hansen decrying the use of his model in this way, and where is Hansen’s rejection of global cooling at the time? Odd we cannot find that.
moregit …….. badly mistaken? or deliberately lying ????
Both.
So, Hansen uses the 2004 verb “swift-boating”, which I presume means that some ex-colleagues are telling the truth about something he’s done wrong. Since 2004 was a while ago, I’ll remind you all that during the presidential campaign John Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat veterans relayed true stories about his behavior in Viet Nam that implied he was unfit to command a boat, much less a country. And for those who claim that was a cheap attempt to politicize Kerry’s military service, he himself politicized it in 1971 when he used it as an “in” to testify in Congress and call all other veterans war criminals.
If Hansen had a point to make, perhaps he should use better words.
Also if you want to toss around the word ‘CLIMATE’ as if it is something sacred then Jimmy Hansen, Mikey Mann, Philly Jones, and Gavin Schmidt have to be discarded because they are NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Jimmy: Education: Atmospheric physics University of Iowa
Mikey: Education A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)
Philly: B.A. in Environmental Sciences (1973) University of Lancaster, M.Sc. in Engineering Hydrology (1974) Ph.D. in Hydrology (1977) Department of Civil Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Gavin: BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, PhD in applied mathematics at University College London
On top of that Mikey was assistant prof. in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. Then Assoc. prof. in the Department of Meteorology at Penn State.
‘Climate Science’ I don’t see any ‘Climate Science’
That’s what I call an academic potpourri…LOL!
Mikey did for the Penn State Meteorology program what Jerry Sandusky did for the Penn State summer youth football program. Maybe worse!
Mikey exponentially outdid Jerry, there is no comparison in numbers. It’s like comparing a card shark to Enron. And I need not say more…
You’re begging for a lawsuit Andy.
As in Mikey, a boy named “Sue”
Those charlatans have the gall to describe themselves as “Scientists”. They can’t explain what is observed so we need to look for people who can.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
Abstract.
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent .
How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?
We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Poor mogur2013, he’s been tossed into Mount Doom.
mogur ought to know better by now. We never let him get away with twisting the truth and this was a really really feeble strawman he setup.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YaXobR75hPs/UV35IXQ6f7I/AAAAAAAAGsI/pgt_o14RC48/s320/strawman.jpg
No, he jumped.
“In 1971, NASA’s top climate experts used a model written by James Hansen…” THAT is what Tony claimed.
All the articles that you quoted, Gail, were about Venusian particulates. Get a life and show me a single paper about Earth’s atmosphere published by Hansen either as primary or contributing author prior to 1976.
No, that’s not what was claimed. Reread it and get back to us, clod.
You can’t even read the first sentence of Tony’s post? Really?
You poor little child.
Gail has posted lots of papers around 1971, and before, published by Hansen and others, making a complete nonsense of your first statement on this topic “Hansen didn’t even publish his first climate paper until 5 years later.”
You were just WRONG, and please, don’t be stupid enough to claim that papers on atmospheric issues is not about climate. (that would make you look very, very stupid)
Now, do you really think Jimmy wouldn’t have had some basic models up and running to do the work in those papers?
Do you really think he wouldn’t allow others to use them to enhance his name?
You obviously know very little about scientific research and how collaborations work, that much is VERY obvious.
Now, prove SG was incorrect……. or STFU !!!
Yuppers, I left the Venus papers out of the list.
Moo-moo is fighting a losing battle. BTW the last I hear changes in the atmosphere was what the ClimAstrologists had their panties in a twist about.
Well, I don’t think you left the Venus papers out of the list, Gail. Look at the title of your last article, “Near Infrared Reflectivity of Venus and Ice Clouds”. In case you Hansen bashers want to know the scary ice age doom and gloom that Hansen was publishing before 1976, here are the abstracts of Gail’s list of papers-
Hansen, J.E., 1971: Multiple scattering of polarized light in planetary atmospheres. Part I & II. Sunlight reflected by terrestrial water clouds. J. Atmos. Sci.
The intensity and polarization of sunlight reflected by terrestrial water clouds are computed with the doubling method. The calculations illustrate that this method can be effectively used in problem involving strongly anisotropic phase matrices. The method can therefore be used to derive information about planetary clouds, including those of the earth, from polarimetric observations.
It is shown that the intensity computed with the exact theory including polarization differs by ? 1.0% from the intensity computed in the common scalar approximation in which the polarization is neglected. Therefore, when only the intensity is required, and not the polarization, it is possible in most cases to neglect polarization entirely.
An approximation obtained by setting the phase matrix elements P34(?) and P43(?) equal to zero is proposed and tested. It is found that this introduces errors less than one part in 106 for the intensity and errors 0.0002 in the degree of polarization. This means that in computing the polarization properties for multiple scattering by spherical particles it is usually adequate to work with 3 by 3 matrices.
An examination is made of the accuracy of the polarization in the approximation in which it is assumed that multiply scattered photons are unpolarized. A modified version of this, which, in addition, takes advantage of the fact that diffracted fight is nearly unpolarized, is also tested. The modified approximation is found to yield an improved accuracy in most cases.
Hansen, J.E., 1971: Circular polarization of sunlight reflected by clouds. J. Atmos. Sci.
Measurements of circular polarization of visible light from planets have recently been reported. It is pointed out here that the values measured for the circular polarization for Jupiter and Venus are of the magnitude expected for sunlight reflected by a cloudy planetary atmosphere. The variations of the sense of the polarization with phase angle and with location on the planetary disk are also consistent with expectations for reflection by clouds.
Kuo-nan Liou and James E. Hansen, 1971: Intensity and Polarization for Single Scattering by Polydisperse Spheres: A Comparison of Ray Optics and Mie Theory. J. Atmos. Sci.
The intensity and polarization for single scattering by large spherical particles are computed using both the exact Mie theory and the approximation of ray optics. It is found that the ray-tracing method can yield accurate results for particle size parameters in the range of interest for some meteorological applications, where the size parameter is the ratio of the particle circumference to the wavelength of the incident light. Since this method is practical for application to nonspherical particles, it should be of use in studies of cloud microstructure. The ray-optics method is also useful in the case of spherical particles because it provides a physical explanation for features which occur in the exact theory.
The ray-optics calculations include Fraunhofer diffraction as well as geometrical reflection and refraction; rays undergoing one or two internal reflections, which give rise to the observable rainbows, are also included. Calculations are made for non-absorbing and absorbing spheres for several refractive indices in the range 1.1 ? nr ? 2.0. Comparisons between the ray-optics approximation and the exact Mie theory are made for nr = 1.33 and 1.50. It is found that the two methods are in close agreement, if the particle size parameter is ?400. It is also shown that, to a good approximation, the ray-optics solution may often be used to obtain the entire phase matrix for single scattering.
Hansen, J.E., and J.B. Pollack, 1970: Near-infrared light scattering by terrestrial clouds. J. Atmos. Sci
Calculations of the reflectivity of water clouds (liquid and ice particles) are compared to observations of terrestrial clouds in the near infrared. The presentation is divided into four parts which may be consulted individually. Section 3 presents new Mie scattering calculations of general interest, Sections 4-7 compare multiple-scattering results to cloud observations, Section 8 suggests a revision in the optical constants of ice for ? — 3?, and the Appendix details several methods which substantitally reduce the work load in multiple-scattering computations.
Our results indicate that it is possible to use the spectral variation of the reflectivity to derive the size of the cloud particles and their phase (liquid or solid) as well as the total optical depth of the clouds. Typical results show dense cirrus clouds to have an optical depth ? 10 and to be composed of ice particles of mean radius 15-20 ?; the cirrus clouds which were analyzed showed a more variable, but usually smaller, particle size.
In spectral regions where the single-scattering albedo is high it is found that most of the gas absorption takes place within the clouds rather than above them.
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Absorption-line formation in a scattering planetary atmosphere: A test of Van de Hulst’s similarity relations. Astrophys. J.
Van de Hulst’s similarity relations, which reduce the problem of anisotropic scattering in a homogeneous atmosphere to one of isotropic scattering by scaling the optical thickness and the single-scattering albedo, are tested for line formation in clouds and hazes. The relations are shown to give good approximations for a useful range of scattering angles when k (the first characteristic exponent occurring in the solution of the transfer equation in unbounded media) is the basis for the scaling relations. Moreover, except for the center of strong lines, the results are nearly as accurate if the scaling factor were simply (1 – ), where is the asymmetry factor of the phase function; this indicates that the mean free path of a photon in a planetary atmosphere is less by the factor (1 – ) than the value determined from synthetic spectra under the assumption of isotropic scattering.
The above results indicate that the density of cloud particles on Venus is about 6 times greater than the value suggested by the synthetic-spectra calculations of Belton, Hunten, and Goody for isotropic scattering, if it is assumed only that the cloud particles are at least ~1 ? in radius. This implies that the density of cloud particles on Venus is comparable with that of cirrus clouds on Earth, a conclusion in agreement with a recent conclusion of Potter.
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Exact and approximate solutions for multiple scattering by cloud and hazy planetary atmospheres. J. Atmos. Sci.
Solutions are obtained for the problem of multiple scattering by a plane parallel atmosphere with anisotropic phase functions typical of cloud and haze particles. The resulting albedos, angular distribution of intensities, and planetary magnitudes are compared to solutions obtained with approximate analytic phase functions and, in the case of the cloud phase function, to the solution obtained with the forward diffraction peak omitted from the phase function.
It is shown that the Henyey-Greenstein phase function, based on the asymmetry factor , yields spherical and plane albedos and planetary magnitudes (for optically thick atmospheres) close to those obtained with the cloud and haze phase functions. The Kagiwada-Kalaba phase function, based on the ratio of forward to backward scattering, give significantly less satisfactory results for the same quantities. Neither of the two analytic phase functions can accurately duplicate the true angular distribution of scattering by thin clouds; however, the results are better with thick layers, especially for hazes. The results indicate that the Henyey-Greenstein phase function may be useful for problems such as line formation in planetary atmospheres.
Hansen, J.E., 1969: Radiative transfer by doubling very thin layers. Astrophys. J.
A doubling principle first used by van de Hulst has been developed to provide rapid and accurate results for the problem of diffuse reflection from a plane-parallel atmosphere. The method described here eliminates the need for numerically solving an equation of radiative transfer by beginning with a layer of such small optical thickness (? ~ 2-25) that the initial scattering and transmission functions are given by the phase function. An application is made to spectral scattering by clouds in the visual and near-infrared, where the phase function is strongly peaked in the forward direction.
James E. Hansen and Howard Cheyney, 1968: Near Infrared Reflectivity of Venus and Ice Clouds. J. Atmos. Sci.
The near infrared reflectivity of ice clouds is computed and compared to observations of Venus. The difficulty in making an exact correction for CO2 absorption precludes the possibility of either establishing or absolutely ruling out ice particles as the primary cloud constituent; however, it is possible to conclude that the clouds are not optically thick and composed of large ice crystals. There is still disagreement as to the quantitative significance of the infrared spectra, but, if it is assumed that a 20% depression may exist in the continuum near 2.0 ? then optically thin clouds (??5–10) of ice particles with radii ?4 ? are compatible with the observations. It is shown that there is a small amount of positive evidence for such clouds.
Perhaps the fundamental problem with self-described “climate scientists” is not their lack of good physics, but is a simple case of poor reading and comprehension skills.
And hubris. I left out hubris.
Upton Sinclair explained it quite well in one sentence:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
This is why you always get double talk, bafflegab and strawmen from ClimAstrologists and their suck-ups instead of straight information. When they can’t baffle you with bovine feces they resort to namecalling, ruining careers and more recently actually trying to toss people in jail for their opinions.
It is why ClimAstrologists have for years refused to debate skeptics and why skeptics are censored, banned, bad mouthed and threatened . In a straight out debate we would wipe the floor with them as Lord Monckton showed when he won the global warming debate at Oxford Union in May 2010.
All the way back in 2006 green activists and green scientists lectured 28 of the BBC’s most senior executives. The BBC then spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret it’s extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which shaped its coverage of global warming and it’s blackout of the skeptic viewpoint.
Scandal: BBC’s six-year cover-up of secret ‘green propaganda’ training for top executives
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/josh_28gate.jpg
As I have been saying for years, starting at WUWT, it has never been about science it is about power, control and money. It is about driving the whole world back into slave chains and a life that is nasty, brutal and short.
Poor Whaleboy! Nuttier than a squirrel turd.
I do know what terrestrial atmosphere means, Stark. But, no worries, I will enlighten you-
Within the Solar System, the terrestrial planets are the inner planets closest to the Sun, i.e. Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The terms “terrestrial planet” and “telluric planet” are derived from Latin words for Earth (Terra and Tellus), as these planets are, in terms of composition, “Earth-like”.
Now why don’t you read a few of Hansen’s papers and understand the difference between a model and a formula.
Heh. Your haldol-soaked rationalizations are quite funny.
Also, since you quoted the abstract, and have obviously familiarized yourself with the paper in question, can you tell us exactly which terrestrial planet Hansen is specifically referring to in his paper? Is it Venus?
Hey mogur2013!
What about this one from Gail:
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.
So, just how big is Venus’s moon? 🙂
I will put up some of the NONEARTH papers so mushbrain can see the difference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hansen, J.E. (Ed.), 1975: The Atmosphere of Venus. NASA SP-382. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
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.
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.
And just in case there is any doubt left:
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.
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.
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.
Jason, that’s a great paper, one of Hansen’s finest:
Matsushima, S., J.R. Zink, and J.E. Hansen, 1966
I even referenced it in my 1982 paper, Volcanic Aerosols and Lunar Eclipses
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/222/4627/1011
updated here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/06/recent-lunar-eclipse-reveals-a-sign-of-global-cooling-in-the-atmosphere/
to show, if not an ice age, at least cooling (and that aerosol cooling is every bit as much as greenhouse warming).
To be clear, Hansen does not bring up climate in this particular paper, but rather applies a neat way of measuring volcanic aerosols. He did some pretty good science before he hijacked GISS to politically study one planet only.
Just in case any one MISSED mogur’s LIE
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.
YOU LIED! period.
moogle is so obviously unfamiliar with Hansen’s corpus, and so bad at reading plain English words, one would have to conclude that he actually is James Hansen.
Well, when you have a small group of people who are reviewing each other’s papers and who are listing each other as authors so that they can all claim publication, it can get very confusing. “Hey! That paper back in 1977…. Was that my paper or was that one of yours?”
Okay, you finally got me, Gail. It looks like you found a paper in which Hansen was listed as a contributor that actually was specifically about Earth’s atmosphere. I apologize. I was misled by Hansen’s claim that his first climate paper was in 1976. Maybe he meant as lead author. Whatever, my claim that he didn’t even contribute to one was wrong. Calling me a liar is a little over the top for my error, however.
Nothing said to you was “over the top” because you began and ended your first statement with insults: “Give it a rest, you clowns. Hansen didn’t even publish his first climate paper until 5 years later……………………………..It is a lie to claim that Hansen’s scattering function was a climate “model”. That claim is obviously a disingenuous attempt to label Hansen a two-faced flip-flopper. Yet you clowns will believe anything written in the right wing press.”
Rah, the whole point is that Tom tried to paint Hansen as having a ‘model’ that was used by Rasool and Schneider in 1971, implying that Hansen was onboard with their a cataclysmic ice age hypothesis 45 years ago. He wasn’t. Rasool and Schneider simply borrowed a scattering formula from Hansen, who did not in any other way contribute to that 1971 paper. In 1974 (not 1976 as Hansen and I claimed), Gail found a paper that Hansen was a contributing member of that did involve CO2 and Earth’s atmosphere.
But this entire piling on Hansen that he is a shuckster that flip-flops from ice age doom to warming doom is total bullshit. Read his stuff. You guys just assume the worst about people that you don’t agree with.
Yeah, I take back ‘clowns’. Just needed to get your attention.
And BTW Hansen made himself into a clown long ago with his silly protests and predictions of doom are not and apparently will not happen and is still doing so. So he deserves all the derision he has and will receive.
The West side Hwy in NYC is still about 10′ above the water.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
Early last hear the fool said he still stands by his 1988 prediction of doom even though the water would have to rise almost 10′ in 13 years for it to come true. If there are any climate clowns, it’s Hanson and his defenders.
“Rasool and Schneider simply borrowed a scattering formula from Hansen, who did not in any other way contribute to that 1971 paper.”
So, SG, first statement is TOTALLY CORRECT..
Thank you. You stupid git. !!
mogur2013 says: “You guys just assume the worst about people that you don’t agree with.”
Says the gobby troll who referred to a group of people he’s never met in his life as “clowns”…
As fine an example of projection as I’ve ever seen in my life.
You’re not the sharpest knife in the block are you, Moggy?
That’s quite the apology, you lying sack of crap. I mean, you don’t do any due diligence whatsoever, you just start shouting and tossing insults. I hope you continue to be the incompetent, shouty idiot you’ve been all along, because it’s kinda funny to think that you’re the best that the SkS cartoonist fanboys can manage.
Points in moo-git’s favour: likes cartoons, can’t tell when being insulted.
Points against: lacking basic vocabulary (ie can’t tell that terrestrial doesn’t refer to Venus), too lazy to actually read what he’s being spoon-fed.
2 points for, two points against. Looks like a wash to me, boss.
Stark, you seismic twit, try reading the definition of terrestrial that I provided you. (Hint, Venus is mentioned.) And then peruse the abstracts of Hansen’s early publications, that I likewise provided for each of Gail’s ‘non-Venusian’ papers. Your cartoon reference is over my head, Snark. Unless your dickfloss is a cartoon, I give up.
1970: Near-infrared light scattering by terrestrial clouds
Hansen, 1974: A parameterization for the absorption of solar radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere
1971: Multiple scattering of polarized light in planetary atmospheres. Part II. Sunlight reflected by terrestrial water clouds.
1974: The GISS model of the global atmosphere
Last I heard North America was located on planet earth.
TERRESTRIAL
DEFINITION
Heh. This from the idiot who:
a. Didn’t read what Steven Goddard wrote.
b. Didn’t read what Gail wrote.
c. Didn’t read what Hansen wrote.
Can’t get any better than that.
Oh, look. The illiterate mentions Venus in relation to something that’s not about Venus. Again.
It must be fun being stupid: you’re never wrong, and people like you.
A teletubbies reference would be over your head, moo. You aren’t very good at processing clearly written English.
I would sincerely suggest that you stop posting comments while medicated, okay? You’re not very good at it.
In this echo chamber a mei scattering function is a ‘model’. A terrestrial planet is not Venus. And any reference to Hansen’s early work by title implies confirmation of Rasool and Schneider’s ice age hypothesis. Yet when I post the actual abstracts of Hansen’s early work, it is clear that he was only citing particulate scattering of terrestrial atmospheres, and he certainly wasn’t confirming, affirming, or endorsing their rather rash hypothesis. But the reality isn’t important, it is only that Hansen now doesn’t agree with your politics, so his science is totally corrupt from the beginning.
Stark, I don’t care about your teletubby fetish, have fun with that. But you guys don’t get to have your own facts. That will be determined by scientific method, not by political echo chambers.
“That will be determined by scientific method, not by political echo chambers.”
Ahhh…. But that would mean that he death of the AGW scam is nigh.
We all wish we could get the politics and religion out of the argument, because the AGW farce wouldn’t last two seconds without it.
So Gail caught me up in an error. In 1974, Jimmy was somewhat a contributor to a scientific paper about CO2. Instead of 1976 (40 years ago), Hansen was possibly onboard with co2 contributions to global warming in 1974. How is this an affirmation that Hansen was aboard Roosal and Schneider’s 1971 paper about 8 times human particulate affluent would create an ice age? It doesn’t. It actually makes Hansen look truer to his projection that the world would warm, because he was one of the scientists that showed Roosal and Schneider wrong. That they used Hansen’s mei function is not an affirmation, it was simply a scientific courtesy that most good scientists afford other scientists.
Hey mogur! “It actually makes Hansen look truer to his projection that the world would warm”
CAGW is more than a theory that the world will warm. It is a theory that the world will warm in an unnatural and dangerous manner because humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. Most sceptics would agree that humans have added some CO2 and that the added CO2 will have some warming effect. Hansen has claimed that the warming from human added CO2 will be large and catastrophic. Sceptics have yet to see any warming outside the usual climate swings that have been happening for thousands of years.
If you want to convince sceptics that Hansen is correct, show us accurate predictions of climate change beyond historic variations.
You actually think that I am a Hansen fan boy. I am not even a fan boy of global warming. I just get amused by this political liberal-bashing political website that thinks that it is even remotely scientific. This site is an echo chamber for anti science. For conservative, anti-Obama rhetoric, this site is the worst. Or best, if you are a retard. This site is the worst of conspiracy, narrow-minded drivel. Tony Heller is a man that shrouded himself in ‘Steven Goddard’ connotations. His fans are loyal, I give them that, but they are just as phony as he is. Tony is a bitter, ugly man. He wants to prove that science is bull crap. Yet engineering is god. Good luck with that.
There is a difference between rocket engineering and rocket science. You can get liftoff with engineers, but you can’t reach space without scientists.
“He wants to prove that science is bull crap.”
More accurately, he wants to prove that bull crap is not science.
“This site is an echo chamber for anti science.”
I’ve made a damn good living all my life by the application of science, you cretin – which is, I suspect, a damn sight more than you can say. Nor, I’m damn sure, am I the only poster who can say that.
“Tony is a bitter, ugly man. He wants to prove that science is bull crap”
And yet he can’t hold a candle to you for bitterness, can he?
The first words you ever posted to the blog were “Give it a rest, you clowns” and you’ve gone downhill ever since.
Dear me, you really are a utterly vile piece of work, aren’t you, you cowardly little man?
As to science, going by the questionable nature of some of your contributions and your ignorance of the correct spelling of ‘Rasool’, I very much doubt you would recognise if it ran under your bridge and bit you on the snout.
You’re just another sad little low-information troll with nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion but insults and abuse.
Talk about chips on shoulders, yours is the size of a giant California redwood.
Oops, missed a closing ‘b’ tag there somewhere!
If you (mogur2013) think “This site is an echo chamber for anti science” then I would guess that you are projecting a bit. You likely have an agenda and it is pretty clear by what you write. I don’t have to insult you. You do a pretty good job of it yourself just by what you write.
Boy if Moogoof thinks this is an echo camber he sure has missed some of the knock down drag out fight going on in the other threads.
“There is a difference between rocket engineering and rocket science. You can get liftoff with engineers, but you can’t reach space without scientists.”
Ah, platitudes.
In what field of endeavor do you apply your science?
I’m a computer engineer. I guess I should have gotten a “Computer Science” degree. Lots of less applied mathematics and science courses. I could have skipped statistics. And linear systems analysis. And thermodynamics. And fluid dynamics when I was briefly pursuing a second degree in chemical engineering.
Your lack in understanding the intertwined nature of engineering and science only demonstrates that you understand neither.
One could name a thousand universally accepted scientific theories that have been dis-proven. But that’s fine. That’s how science advances. Not by digging our heels and closing the patent office.
For you, science is obviously what other, smarter people (who say what you want to hear) do.
Here’s a first for me ever on any website:
You are quite simply, an idiot. With an accent on the simple.
Okay. Maybe not a thousand.
Is there an echo?
Just the one inside your skull.
Hey gator notice that the Moregoof says:
He grabs the shroud of ?SCIENCE? to pull over his BS but like most of the CAGW dimwits never posts anything but Grand Pronouncements and never any science.
When called on it he then descends to name calling.
Also note while he very grudgingly had to concede the point on the 1974 paper he still ignores the 1971 papers on clouds.
“Calculations of the reflectivity of water clouds (liquid and ice particles) are compared to observations of terrestrial clouds in the near infrared.”
Last I knew only EARTH had water clouds as containing liquid and ice particles.
Empty vessels … etc etc
So to sum up mogur2013’s contribution to this thread:
He comes in hot and heavy calling regular commenter “clowns”.
He lectures them on Hansen’s papers and the meaning of “terrestrial”.
He gets caught not knowing what he’s talking about.
He defends it for a while.
He admits that he got caught.
He tries to take back “clowns” and says he did it to get attention.
He calls commenters “retards”.
Well, he did get my attention. I’m filing his handiwork in my folder of circular mind specimens.
You guys are so easy to incite. If it smells like actual science, it is a conspiracy. Climategate was a normal exchange between scientists who thought that their emails wouldn’t become public, not a conspiracy to empower the left wing agenda to ruin global economy. Really, why would thousands of climate scientists conspire to screw up the world? Do you really think that chasing the almighty federal government dole (from virtually every country in the world) in the form of grants and political favoritism is the motivation of scientists that have dedicated their lives to the truth?
Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. There are scientists that chase research grants. There are scientists that take money from corporations that want tobacco to be harmless, global warming to be fraudulent, vaccines to be harmful, fluoride to be poisonous, and chlorofluorocarbons not to ruin the ozone layer. Unfortunately, for conservatives, Ronald Reagan took the advice of his science advisers and signed on to the Montreal protocol. Here is his observation-
“The Montreal protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects. The protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement.”
Please do not tell me that Ronald Reagan is a part of your conspiracy foolishness.
https://coloradowellington.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/easy-to-incite.png
Really, why would thousands of climate scientists conspire to screw up the world?
It isn’t “thousands” of scientists, and in the warped minds of the handful of grantologists who believe they are saving Gaia, everything is about “the cause”.
Do you really think that chasing the almighty federal government dole (from virtually every country in the world) in the form of grants and political favoritism is the motivation of scientists that have dedicated their lives to the truth?
They are not dedicated to “the truth”, they are deicated to “the cause”.
Ozone stories and tobacco have nothing to do with climate grantology.
Let’s hear from those “seekers of truth”. Just what do the High Priests of the trillion dollar Climate Change Industry have to say?
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models</b?.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<i."The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21
“If it smells like actual science, it is a conspiracy.”
Really.
Little troll, you wouldn’t recognise actual science if it scuttled under your bridge, jumped up, and bit you on the snout.
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
SHOO!