Storms of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 11:34 PM GMT on July 26, 2010

Share this Blog
9
+

"Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" is NASA climate change scientist Dr. James Hansen's first book. Dr. Hansen is arguably the most visible and well-respected climate change scientist in the world, and has headed the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Dr. Hansen greatly raised awareness of the threat of global warming during his Congressional testimony during the record hot summer of 1988, and issued one of the first-ever climate model predictions of global warming (see an analysis here to see how his 1988 prediction did.) In 2009, Dr. Hansen was awarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."

Storms of My Grandchildren focuses on the key concepts of the science of climate change, told through Hansen's personal experiences as a key player in field's scientific advancements and political dramas over the past 40 years. Dr. Hansen's writing style is very straight-forward and understandable, and he clearly explains the scientific concepts involved in a friendly way that anyone with a high school level science education can understand. I did not find any scientific errors in his book. However, some of his explanations are too long-winded, and the book is probably too long, at 274 pages. Nevertheless, Storms of My Grandchildren is a must-read, due to the importance of the subject matter and who is writing it. Hansen is not a fancy writer. He comes across as a plain Iowan who happened to stumble into the field of climate change and discovered things he had to speak out about. And he does plenty of speaking out in his book.

James Hansen vs. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Hansen's book opens with an interesting chapter on his participation in four meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's cabinet-level Climate Task Force in 2001. It seems that the Bush Administration was prepared to let Dr. Hansen's views on climate change influence policy. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen, whom Hansen describes as "the dean of of global warming contrarians", was also present at the meetings. Dr.Lindzen was able to confuse the task force members enough so that they never took Dr. Hansen's views seriously. Hansen observes that "U.S. policies regarding carbon dioxide during the Bush-Cheney administration seem to have been based on, or at a minimum, congruent with, Lindzen's perspective." Hansen asserts that Lindzen was able to do this by acting more like a lawyer than a scientist: "He and other contrarians tend to act like lawyers defending a client, presenting only arguments that favor their client. This is in direct contradiction to...the scientific method." Hansen also comments that he asked Lindzen what he thought of the link between smoking and cancer, since Lindzen had been a witness for the tobacco industry decades earlier. Lindzen "began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data."

Alarmism
Global warming contrarians often dismiss scientists such a Dr. Hansen as "alarmists" who concoct fearsome stories about climate change in order to get research funding. Dr. Lindzen made this accusation at Cheney's Climate Task Force in 2001. However, Dr. Hansen notes that "in 1981 I lost funding for research on the climate effects of carbon dioxide because the Energy Department was displeased with a paper, 'Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide,' I had published in Science magazine. The paper made a number of predictions for the 21st century, including 'opening of the fabled Northwest Passage', which the Energy Department considered to be alarmist but which have since proven to be accurate." If you read Dr. Hansen's book and listen to his lectures, it is clear that he is not an alarmist out to get more research funding by hyping the dangers of global warming. Hansen says in his book that "my basic nature nature is very placid, even comfortably stolid", and that nature comes through very clearly in Storms of My Grandchildren. Hansen's writings express a quiet determination to plainly set forth the scientific truth on climate change. He has surprisingly few angry words towards the politicians, lobbyists, and scientists intent on distorting the scientific truth.

The science of climate change
The bulk of Storms of My Grandchildren is devoted to explanations of the science of climate change. Hansen's greatest concern is disintegration of the gerat ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica causing sea level rise: "Once the ice sheets begin to rapidly disintegrate, sea level would be continuously changing for centuries. Coastal cities would become impractical to maintain." Hansen is concerned that evidence from past climate periods show that the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica can melt quickly, with large changes within a century. For example, sea level at the end of the most recent Ice Age, 13,000 - 14,000 years ago, rose at a rate of 3 - 5 meters (10 - 17 feet) per century for several centuries. Hansen is convinced that just a 1.7 -2°C warming, which would likely result if we stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm, would be a "disaster scenario" that would trigger rapid disintegration of the ice sheets and disastrous rises in sea level. Hansen advocates stabilizing CO2 at 350 ppm (we are currently at 390 ppm, with a rate of increase of 2 ppm per year.)

Another of Hansen's main concerns is the extinction of species. He notes that studies of more than 1,000 species of plants, animals, and insects have found an average migration rate towards the poles due to climate warming in the last half of the 20th century to be four miles per decade. "That is not fast enough. During the past thirty years the lines marking the regions in which a given average temperature prevails (isotherms) have been moving poleward at a rate of about thirty-five miles per decade. If greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade."

Hansen's other main concern is the release of large amounts of methane gas stored in sea-floor sediments in the form of methane hydrates. If ocean temperatures warm according to predictions, the higher temperatures at the sea floor may be enough to destabilize the methane hydrate sediments and release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 - 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Solutions to the climate change problem
Dr. Hansen is a controversial figure, since he has stepped outside his field of expertise and become an activist in promoting solutions to the climate change problem. He devotes a chapter called "An Honest, Effective Path" in the book to this. His main theme is that we need to tax fossil fuels using a "fee-and-dividend" approach. All of the tax money collected would be distributed uniformly to the public. This carbon tax would gradually rise, giving people time to adjust their lifestyle, choice of vehicle, home insulation, etc. Those who do better at reducing their fossil fuel use will receive more in the dividend than they will pay in the added costs of the products they buy. The approach is straightforward and does not require a large bureaucracy, but currently has little political support. Hansen is vehemently opposed to the approach that has the most political support, "Cap-and-trade": "Cap-and-trade is what governments and the people in alligator shoes (the lobbyists for special interests) are trying to foist on you. Whoops. As an objective scientist I should delete such personal opinions, to at least flag them. But I am sixty-eight years old, and I am fed up with the way things work in Washington." Hansen also promotes an overlooked type of nuclear power, "fast" reactors with liquid metal coolant that produce far less nuclear waste and are much more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors.

Quotes from the book
"Humanity treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the air, we move onto a steeper, even more slippery incline. We seem oblivious to the danger--unaware how close we may be to a situation in which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled into a torrential stream that hurls us over a precipice to our demise."

"In order for a democracy to function well, the public needs to be honestly informed. But the undue influence of special interests and government greenwash pose formidable barriers to a well-informed public. Without a well-informed public, humanity itself and all species on the planet are threatened."

"Of course by 2005 I was well aware that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had become an office of propaganda. In 2004, I learned that NASA press releases related to global warming were sent to the White House, where they were edited to appear less serious or discarded entirely."

"If we let special interests rule, my grandchildren and yours will pay the price."

"The role of money in our capitals is the biggest problem for democracy and for the planet."

"The problem with asking people to pledge to reduce their fossil fuel use is that even if lots of people do, one effect is reduced demand for fossil fuel and thus a lower price--making it easier for someone else to burn...it is necessary for people to reduce their emissions, but it is not sufficient if the government does not adopt policies that cause much of the fossil fuels to be left in the ground permanently."

"I have argued that it is time to 'draw a line in the sand' and demand no new coal plants."

"The present situation is analogous to that faced by Lincoln with slavery and Churchill with Nazism--the time for compromises and appeasement is over."

"Humans are beginning to hammer the climate system with a forcing more than an order of magnitude more powerful than the forcings that nature employed."

"Once ice sheet disintegration begins in earnest, our grandchildren will live the rest of their lives in a chaotic transition period."

"After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

"One suggestion I have for now: Support Bill McKibben and his organization 350.org. It is the most effective and responsible leadership in the public struggle for climate justice."

Commentary
James Hansen understands the Earth's climate as well as any person alive, and his concern about where our climate is headed makes Storms of My Grandchildren a must-read for everyone who cares about the world their grandchildren will inherit. Storms of My Grandchildren retails for $16.50 at Amazon.com. Dr. Hansen's web site is http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 2334 - 2284

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147Blog Index

Oh Hansen... ... Sorry!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ezcColony:


Whatever!

^ Jim Hansen (13 July 2006). "The Threat to the Planet". The New York Review of Books 53 (12). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131.


Proof by Ghost Reference. It does not say "Miami will be underwater by 2010". Here's what it actually says:

A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. The Earth%u2019s history reveals cases in which sea level, once ice sheets began to collapse, rose one meter (1.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world, most of them far larger than New Orleans. Devastation from a rising sea occurs as the result of local storms which can be expected to cause repeated retreats from transitory shorelines and rebuilding away from them.


And that's talking about only *after* 5 degrees F warming has occurred.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2332. IKE
Quiet across the Atlantic Basin

Jul 27, 2010 5:16 PM


We continue to observe a relative quiet across the Atlantic Basin. A tropical wave roughly near 60 west is enhancing showers and thunderstorms from the central Lesser Antilles southward to Trinidad and Tobago. This wave will move into the eastern Caribbean where we see drier than normal air in place. A tropical wave roughly along 35 west has a large arcing cloud mass that extends to north of 20 north. This feature is partially wrapped in some drier air. However, the dry Saharan dust area is falling apart. This tropical wave will reach the Lesser Antilles later Friday and Friday night then move across the Caribbean this weekend and early next week. Some computer forecast information suggests this wave might create a large area of clouds, showers and thunderstorms over the western Caribbean by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. We see no other features at this point that would be considered for tropical development. We expect no tropical development across the Atlantic Basin through at least Friday.

By AccuWeather Expert Senior Meteorologist Dan Kottlowski
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2331. angiest
Sad how I decided to remove a post I made about tropical weather in this blog...
Member Since: August 26, 2006 Posts: 16 Comments: 4766
2330. Michale
Quoting ACEhigh:
Michale, if you truly believe that the peer review process "means dick" then you have no business commenting on anything even remotely scientific. Peer review is the very foundation of all science- not just climatology. You are woefully ignorant of how science works i'm afraid. I'm sure you feel that the world's climatologists are part of a diabolical conspiracy to take away your Hummer and usher in a glorious era of socialism, but the facts do not support your paranoia.


I agree with you..

However, in the field of climatology, a logical and rational person would have to take the peer review process with a huge grain of salt.

Considering the blatant manipulation and attempted manipulation of the Pro AGW scientists of the peer review process, how can ANYONE put their trust in the process??

Or do you not have a problem with manipulation of the peer review process, as long as it brings about the desired results???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever?


I'll bite on this one! This is from the article that was just cited for KarenREI.

The level of the sea throughout the globe is a reflection primarily of changes in the volume of ice sheets and thus of changes of global temperature. When the planet cools, ice sheets grow on continents and the sea level falls. Conversely, when the Earth warms, ice melts and the sea level rises. In Field Notes from a Catastrophe, Elizabeth Kolbert reports on the work of researchers trying to understand the acceleration of melting, and in his new book and film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore graphically illustrates possible effects of a rising sea level on Florida and other locations.

Would a credible scientist actually cite Al Gore's movie to help prove his statements? Answer = NO!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2325. CJ5
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
FOX says a study by (I didnt catch the name)
shows that Global Warming could trigger a mass migration of illegals aliens (or as Obama prefers to refer to them, "Undocumented Democrats") across our southern border.

More fear-mongering marrying the two issues. Unreal.


Fear mongering? Climate migration is a fact of man and has been happening for thousands of years. If the climate where to change drastically, there would be mass migration.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LOOK OUT MINNESOTA!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jpsb:
What is the correct mean temperature for the Earth?


There isn't one for Earth as a whole. However, many of our crops are much more choosy about the conditions under which they'll grow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2322. ticka1
Time to go back and read old blogs. That will keep me occupied and out of this discussion. Enough said.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
why are some people posts closed and I have to press show even if I don't ignore them. how do I get rid of that?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2320. palmpt
Quoting Tazmanian:



oops



a little GW is find but you guys need too no when too end it

I totally agree. I am in New York on business and just as sick of hearing GW as I was before I left the Gulf Coast!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2319. Michale
Quoting FLdewey:
Poor woman.


I am SOOO glad we have moved away from personal attacks, eh?? :^/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Twinkster:


you are calling this blog scientific. It is a weather blog mainly focused on the tropics. Many people who do not understand come here to find information. I am posting common sense information that a typical person with no knowledge of the topic can understand. the reason you do not like my post is because you don't agree with my point of view. Don't question my knowledge of the topic. I have done countless hours of research and a paper or two on global warming. My focus is on the political aspect of global warming and how the facts are skewed to make the problem seem worse than it is. Yes the world is warming but compared to what? that is what I want to know and that is what so many other people want to know. The earth is warming based on 10,000 years of ice core data, 30 years of satellite data, or warming overall based on the entire length of earth's history. those are the things we must look at when discussing global warming


LOL...what else is it?? Weather is based on science. If you get a degree in meteorology or climatology then you are getting a degree in SCIENCE?? This blog is obviously based on SCIENCE.. and the knowledgeable mets that post here (degreed or not) base their opinions and forcast on scientifc FACTS...

Even if it wasn't a SCIENCE BLOG... Why come in here and post a rebutal to GW that isnt based on facts or only one fact in your case? If you want to argue against global warming thats fine but at least "get your facts straight" first.

Common sense tells us that SCIENTIST have many more tools in place to produce and retrive data on GW than just satellites and the last 30 years of data from them... and the FACTS back that logic up

So yes, do some personal research (google works great). Get all of the relevant facts and then com in here and post a MEANINGFUL and RELEVANT arguement against GW. Otherwise, dont post anything because again it just makes you look ignorant..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh oh! Birthmark is trying to get the fire going again....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2316. breald
Quoting FLdewey:


Sounds like a personal problem.


Why would anyone take you seriously if you say words like simma?

BTW jvf how is your kid?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2315. ACEhigh
Michale, if you truly believe that the peer review process "means dick" then you have no business commenting on anything even remotely scientific. Peer review is the very foundation of all science- not just climatology. You are woefully ignorant of how science works i'm afraid. I'm sure you feel that the world's climatologists are part of a diabolical conspiracy to take away your Hummer and usher in a glorious era of socialism, but the facts do not support your paranoia.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2314. hydrus
Quoting Floodman:


Yeah, it's like stepping into a steaming pile of dog stuff and while hopping on one foot looking to see how bad you got it, you hop into another one
lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Michale:


What statement do you dispute??

That Hansen is a climate activist??


Why wouldn't he be? Should a doctor who has discovered that a certain prescription will kill you just keep quiet? Or should they do the moral thing and say, "You'll die if you take this?"



That a good scientist MUST be objective??



A good scientist is objective about their *work*. They are under no obligation to view the results of that work dispassionately. They aren't automatons. Thank goodness.

That Hansen is a bad scientist??



Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Floodman:


Yeah, it's like stepping into a steaming pile of dog stuff and while hopping on one foot looking to see how bad you got it, you hop into another one
LMAO!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
simma = simmer

say it outloud and it suddenly makes sense :-D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting btwntx08:
whoever hates this gw stuff and want to talk tropics stuff please head to miamihurricanes09 blog very active and better than here thanks greatly appreciated
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KarenRei:


{{citation needed}}


Whatever!

^ Jim Hansen (13 July 2006). "The Threat to the Planet". The New York Review of Books 53 (12). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2306. jpsb
Quoting Birthmark:


Whether it was hotter in the past is irrelevant. There weren't 6 or 7 billion people on Earth at any of those times. There wasn't any technology. There wasn't industrial farming. For the vast majority of that time nothing that we eat even existed. So appealing to 60 million or 2 billion years ago is a pointless.

What matters is that the Earth has an energy imbalance that is resulting in the Earth retaining more heat. That heat is affecting the things that are living growing *now*.

Technology bearing humans, dependent upon industrial farming (or any kind of farming), have never faced this grave a problem before.

What is the correct mean temperature for the Earth?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2305. IKE
I can talk about the tropics in one word...dead.


SYNOPSIS FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO
430 PM CDT TUE JUL 27 2010

.SYNOPSIS...A COASTAL TROUGH WILL DEVELOP OVER THE SW BAY OF
CAMPECHE DURING DAYLIGHT AND MOVE INLAND AND DISSIPATE EACH
NIGHT THROUGH THE PERIOD. HIGH PRES WILL MEANDER OVER THE NW
WATERS THROUGH THE PERIOD. A SERIES OF WEAK FRONTAL TROUGHS
WILL MOVE THROUGH THE NE WATERS THROUGH THE PERIOD.


SYNOPSIS FOR CARIBBEAN SEA AND TROPICAL N ATLC FROM 07N TO 22N
BETWEEN 55W AND 65W
530 PM EDT TUE JUL 27 2010

.SYNOPSIS...A TROPICAL WAVE ALONG 60W WILL MOVE W 15 KT TO ALONG
66W WED...73W THU...78W FRI AND 85W SAT. A TROPICAL WAVE IN THE
CENTRAL ATLC WILL REACH ALONG 55W FRI NIGHT AND MOVE INTO E
CARIBBEAN SUN.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLdewey:


Sounds like a personal problem.


Hahaha.....I love it! Argh...Everyone is soooo uptight today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ezcColony:


According to Hansen, and a bunch of other AGW activists, your home should have been underwater years ago.


{{citation needed}}
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2300. CJ5
Quoting breald:



Well the democrats just tried to do that by passing a finance transparency bill but Republicans blocked it. One party is trying to change and the other is blocking the change from happening. The system is broken.


LOL..a finance transparency bill? You better go back a re-read the bill. LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting southfla:
I gave up trying to discuss GW with folks determined to believe it is a hoax or less charitably, science for cash. I earnestly hope they continue to believe in their conspiracy anti-GW explanations so that I can sell my Miami, Fl home to one of them when I am ready to retire. After all, if everyone believes in GW and the more alarming predictions, then the real estate market in Miami will never recover. He He.


According to Hansen, and a bunch of other AGW activists, your home should have been underwater years ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2294. Michale
Quoting SomeRandomTexan:
Until the good Dr. Masters puts up a good Tropics Blog or everyone starts talking about the tropics I think I will go join the rest who are discussing weather... Since this is a weather website.

toddles...

Keep up the good work Doug and Michale


I wish I could.. But I gots to go get dinner going for my lovely wife... So I am going to have to bail soon..

But it HAS been real and it HAS been fun.. :D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DeanD:
Jeff, your review of Hansen's book did not include any discussion at all of how we can stop global warming by, for examples, distributing sulphates in the stratosphere or deflecting solar energy by putting huge mirrors in orbit. Perhaps the most important question in the global warming issue is what unforseen consequences such steps might bring. Surely, Dr. Hansen at least commented on this very important issue. If he did not, he is seriously remiss. And if he did, and you failed to repoort on it, you are seriously remisss.


Any attempt to block global warming by reducing sunlight is bound to have just as many problems for life as the warming itself -- not to mention that it'll do absolutely nothing to prevent ocean acidification and similar problems. Also, almost all of them are temporary and would need to be done in ever-greater scale as emissions continue to grow, with any cessation leading to rapid "catch-up" warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I gave up trying to discuss GW with folks determined to believe it is a hoax or less charitably, science for cash. I earnestly hope they continue to believe in their conspiracy anti-GW explanations so that I can sell my Miami, Fl home to one of them when I am ready to retire. After all, if everyone believes in GW and the more alarming predictions, then the real estate market in Miami will never recover. He He.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2291. Michale
Quoting Floodman:


And what is ti that you do? What makes you qualified to make that staement? I'm just looking for some idea as to how to take your statements as I donlt know you and I've been reading soem interesting stuff from you...I mean if you're the dean of Sciences at MIT, I need to really pay attention...


What statement do you dispute??

That Hansen is a climate activist??

That a good scientist MUST be objective??

That Hansen is a bad scientist??

Which statement is it that you disagree with?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Everyone interested in talking about the tropics, MH09's blog is open and it's active.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2289. breald
Quoting FLdewey:


Miami knows I'm joking... simma down.


sorry I don't understand the word simma?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Until the good Dr. Masters puts up a good Tropics Blog or everyone starts talking about the tropics I think I will go join the rest who are discussing weather... Since this is a weather website.

toddles...

Keep up the good work Doug and Michale
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Twinkster:
I understand that there are other methods that have been used such as measuring the concentration of Carbon dioxide in ice cores and then dating the ice cores but once again that ice that is present at the poles only represents a small fraction of the earth's long history.



Ignoring that ice cores don't exist only at the poles (e.g., greenland, etc):

1) There's also sediment cores
2) There's also dendrochronology
3) There's also borehole temperature reconstructions.

These are just off the top of my head. There are several dozen methods out there. Different methods have different geographic applicability (although some can be used almost anywhere); however, virtually everywhere on the planet, there are several different methods that can be used. These can be in turn cross-validated with each other.

Quoting Twinkster:
ice is continuously melting and forming.



Only in some places. In other places, it has an amazingly ancient history.

Quoting Twinkster:
but the reason i mention the satellite data is because satellite data is the only thing that can give an accurate measurement of the global average temperature



Satellites are a useful tool to measure the planets temperature. They are *far* from the only way to give an accurate measurement of the global average temperature. There are many reconstructions that have all gone through peer-review, including the cross-validation of the results from utterly different methods of calculating historic temperature and current methods of measuring present temperatures. In short, if you want to claim that one method is producing bogus results, you're put in the awkward situation of explaining why they produce the *same* bogus results.

Think of it this way. Let's say that you're an adherent to a theory that the average human body temperature is 90F. When others get 98.6F, you insist that something must be wrong with the way we're measuring body temperature. That would be a sound argument if we only measured body temperature in one way, but we measure it by oral thermometers, some involving expansion of liquids and others changes in conductivity of metals; rectal thermometers (same); infrared thermometers in the ear; even radio-transmitting thermometers that are swallowed in a capsule. When all of them return an approximately 98.6 average across a wide range of patients, the excuse of "they're measuring wrong" becomes pretty hard to sustain.

The exact same thing applies to climatology. Within the margins of error, if they're wrong, why should dendrocronology results yield the same thing as ice core results? Why should ice core results yield the same thing as borehole results? Why should borehole results yield the same thing as sediment core results? And so forth. And why should all of these, when taken to current times, match surface temperature station results and satellite results?

Again, the matches aren't exact, and there are anomalies. But the overall pattern, within the margins of error, begs an explanation.

Quoting Twinkster:
before 30 years ago scientists relied on measurements taken from weather stations all over the world to determine temperature. The warmest places on earth are rarely inhabited and thus we didn't have reliable temperatures from those warmest regions. It is no surprise that global average temperature increased when satellite data began funneling in because we had observations from those remote areas.



Wrong in several regards. First, let's dispel with this right away: temperature changes are measured via what are called temperature "anomalies". That is, the change of temperature in an area relative to its baseline. If you have no baseline -- i.e., no data from a location before -- and you have data now -- you have no anomaly for that location.

Secondly, the correlation of datapoints over geographic regions is already studied and statistically validated. That is, to say, if you have a heat wave hitting NYC, statistically, you have a high correlation with a heat wave hitting Trenton, but a low correlation with a heat wave hitting Seattle. Calculated correlations are already utilized in interpolation between known datapoints. Any uncertainty is then statistically reflected in the confidence interval for the reconstruction.

Lastly, there have long been more recording stations in the hotter parts of the planet (say, northern Africa) than in the coldest (say, inland Antarctica and the north polar cap).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2286. DeanD
Jeff, your review of Hansen's book did not include any discussion at all of how we can stop global warming by, for examples, distributing sulphates in the stratosphere or deflecting solar energy by putting huge mirrors in orbit. Perhaps the most important question in the global warming issue is what unforseen consequences such steps might bring. Surely, Dr. Hansen at least commented on this very important issue. If he did not, he is seriously remiss. And if he did, and you failed to repoort on it, you are seriously remisss.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thank you Keeper for presenting this graph on the other blog:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/MiamiHurricanes09/comment.html?entrynum=60#commenttop



Global ACE continues to be at record lows.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 2334 - 2284

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.