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: 2234 - 2184

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

The wave around 30W is about to develop in this record breaking year of global warming.
Member Since: September 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1606
if you want too talk about Tropical weather go overe too MiamiHurricanes09 blog GW stays here
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
breald 8:33 PM GMT on July 27, 2010
Flood, this is the only way they know how to "win' the argument.This is exactly what the conservative party does with news. They alter tapes to only show what they want you to perceive, and sadly it works on most people.


Nope, it is just that you can not base these rediculous claims off of such a short time period of research considering the earth has been here thousands of years...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ah, glad to see the blog settled down in my short absense. Also saw that the Department of the Navy Grand Freak'in PooBaa actually had a comment removed for violating community standards. Now that's funny. For those in the panhandle, Oil Spill Economic Recovery Task Force briefing tomorrow morning at the Emerald Grande in Destin. Agenda....Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There is no single instrument measuring climate change. Instead there are thousands of measuring devices spread across the globe, on land, under the sea and in the air.

The climate system is a complex, interactive system consisting of the atmosphere, land surface, snow and ice, oceans and other bodies of water, and living things. The atmospheric component of the climate system is what we generally refer to as climate: climate is often defined as ‘average weather’. Climate is usually described in terms of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation and wind over a period of time, ranging from months to millions of years.

Countless empirical tests of numerous different hypotheses have now built up a massive body of Earth science knowledge. This repeated testing has refined the understanding of many aspects of the climate system, from deep oceanic circulation to stratospheric chemistry. Sometimes a combination of observations and models can be used to test planetary-scale hypotheses. For example, the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere observed after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo provided key tests of particular aspects of climate models.

Climate science in recent decades has seen an increasing rate of advancement, particularly in field research and notably through the evolution of measuring climate change methodology and tools, including the models and observations that support and enable the research. During the last four decades, the rate at which scientists have added to the body of knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic processes has accelerated dramatically. As scientists incrementally increase the totality of knowledge, they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals.

Temperature When measuring climate change this is a primary and can be measured or reconstructed for the Earth's surface, and sea surface temperature (SST).

Precipitation (rainfall, snowfall etc) offers another indicator of relative climate variation and may include humidity or water balance, and water quality.

Biomass and vegetation patterns may be discerned in a variety of ways and provide evidence of how ecosystems change to adapt to climate change.

Sea Level measurements reflect changes in shoreline and usually relate to the degree of ice coverage in high latitudes and elevations.

Solar Activity can influence climate, primarily through changes in the intensity of solar radiation.

Volcanic Eruptions, like solar radiation, can alter climate due to the aerosols that are emitted into the atmosphere and alter climate patterns.

Chemical composition of air or water can be measured by tracking levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and measuring ratios of oxygen isotopes. Research indicates a strong correlation between the percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the Earth's mean temperature.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2228. bjdsrq
How Tony Hayward gets last laugh at Obama. Like I said before, the oil industry pays for the smartest people.


Tony Hayward's parting shot

By MarketWatch
Jul 27, 2010 15:30:00 (ET)


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- As BP chief Tony Hayward prepares to tackle new challenges in Russia, he's hit on a way to choke off some of the cost of that pesky Gulf oil spill.

For BP shareholders, it's pure genius.

Here's how it works: Citing the $32 billion charge BP (BP, Trade ) is taking to cover the cost of the spill and the $17 billion second-quarter loss this caused the company, BP is entitled to a $9.9 billion tax credit. That's nearly half of the $20 billion Hayward agreed to set aside to cover the job when he met last month with President Barack Obama.

And, because it's part of the nation's corporate tax code, it's perfectly legal.

Hayward, fielding questions Tuesday about BP's second-quarter results, wasn't terribly eager to discuss the move. But he reassured everyone that it follows "current" IRS regulations. In other words, this will save BP nearly $10 billion that Washington had probably been counting on to help clean up the Gulf.

American taxpayers are likely to take a darker view of this development than BP shareholders. Despite President Barack Obama vowing to make BP pay for this mess, it suddenly looks like a big chunk of the cost will be coming out of their pockets after all.

Of course this might just be a temporary state of affairs. Once Washington lawmakers catch wind of a populist backlash, you can bet there will be calls to change the law.

That's where things get really interesting. Remember when Hayward was on the hot seat in June, testifying before a mostly hostile gang of U.S. legislators? One of them really stood out. Representative Joe Barton of Texas took it upon himself to apologize to Hayward for what he called Obama's $20 billion "shakedown" of the oil company. He later apologized for the apology, but his initial message stuck.

A month later, BP appears to be the one doing the shaking down, using a good old-fashioned American corporate tax loophole.

If lawmakers close that loophole, it would set a dire precedent for other companies counting on tax breaks to survive their own financial setbacks. Citigroup (C, Trade ) alone has built up $21 billion in deferred tax assets due to losses from the financial crisis.

No matter how this shakes out, Washington looks like it got caught flat-footed. And with nothing left to lose in the arena of public opinion, Tony Hayward suddenly doesn't look so clueless after all.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Floodman:


Nope, you're dead flat on it...the politicians in this country have made things pretty ugly. Now iof you know our history (and honestly, how many in here really do), we've been here before; the division in this country after the Revolutionary War, the Jackson Imperialism (very bad and nearly as divisive as our system today), the Civil War...

It's bad, but if we're careful and get the right leadership we can get out of it, but there's really no one in DC right now that can do it

Oh, damn...I started into politics...d'fly, stop me, huh?


LOL I get the same way my friend... Agreed to no leadership in DC... Someone needs to rid of the special interest and start paying these fools like NBA superstars... Then the cream (real leaders) will come out of the woodwork and lead. I mean, I wouldnt want to put my hat in that ring with all of those criminals.... just like I dont want to work at the local county corrections... who in their right mind would think they could go in and clean up all that corruption! Chop it out by getting rid of the under the counter payoffs. They will weed themselves after that.... Then show the money and the folks that want to lead for whats best in the country will show up (dem or Repub) ... Right now its a chicken and egg problem.. but we'll figure it out even if we have to implode a bit to get there....
Member Since: July 1, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 1681
Quoting Michale:


There's a difference.

Fermi didn't have a financial stake in the position he took.....

The same cannot be said for Dr Hansen...

Which isn't to say that Hansen lied...

But it is undeniable he had and still has a huge financial and reputational stake in what his position is...



You mean like this?

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."


Want more recent? How, exactly, do you think arguing in favor of global warming went over, funding-wise, during the previous eight years under an administration that didn't believe in it? An administration that re-wrote the findings of scientific institutions and held back reports in order to push global warming denial? That's like going to the tobacco industry and saying, "Hey, I just found out that tobacco causes disease X -- give me more funding to research this!"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Twinkster -- I am not being harsh but you CAN NOT come onto a scientific blog and post a conclusion that you have come with on your own that is based based off of hog-wash or your own incorrect interpretation of the facts... thats ignorant at best man.

If you truely think that scientist are basing the GW theory on the last 30 years of satellite data alone, then you are waaaaay off the mark and really should do some more research on your own .. or at the very least read my last post...

Your post reminded of the people that told Columbus that he would sail off of the edge... LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Repost

I notice a correlation in Sea Ice daily, when I look at the University of Illinois' Cyrosphere today. When the Arctic sea ice goes down, the Antarctic goes up. It's really funny, and can be seen in these two images:



Notice how the Arctic is coming up from a ow point, but the overall trend is down



Yet the Antarctic is coming out of a highpoint, but the overall trend is up.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Also the melting of ice starts becoming more rapid in 2000. Funny you say that, as that is when the AMO turned positive.



The PDO and AMO both warm, combined, distort the Global Heat Budget to favor warm, and for it to be further north, explaining why the Arctic is losing ice, and the Antarctic is gaining ice.

http://www.accuweather.com/video/111162007001/one-more-look-at-the-coming-cooling.asp?channel=vbbas taj

The Arctic was feeling an impact from the warm PDO, and even a bigger impacted from the warm AMO, so what do you think will happen when the PDO turns cold, and the AMO turns cold...

The PDO is starting to turn cold... c'mon folks, let's hear your opinions...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2223. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
Quoting IKE:


The ACE total this month has got to be l-o-w, over the entire planet.

update till jun30 july may go up slightly


2010 Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones
Maximum Wind Speed & ACE per storm (ATCF operational intensity estimates)

North Atlantic
Alex (85 ACE = 7.3725)
TD02 (30 ACE = 0.0)
Bonnie (whirl) (35 ACE = 0.49)
Western North Pacific
01W (30 ACE = 0.0)
Omais (50 ACE = 2.0075)
Conson (75 ACE = 8.3225)
Chanthu (75 ACE = 3.5775)
Northern Indian Ocean & Arabian Sea
Laila (65 ACE = 4.46)
Bandu (55 ACE = 2.39)
Phet (125 ACE = 14.16)
Eastern Pacific
Agatha (40 ACE = 0.2825)
Blas (55 ACE = 2.715)
Celia (140 ACE = 25.4875 )
Darby (105 ACE = 10.3925)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52266
2222. Michale
Quoting Birthmark:


Fortunately for Dr. Hansen, he has virtually all of the peer-reviewed science backing his position! Whew!


And, as I have pointed out time and again and no one has disputed, the "peer review" process took a huge credibility hit when it was discovered that Pro AGW (sic) "scientists" decided to rig the peer review process in their favor..

Peer review means precisely dick... It's like having a seal of approval that you can purchase simply by saying the right words...

Regardless of all that, if Hansen had all that peer review back-up and he was STILL wrong, then what does THAT tell you about the peer-review process??

Did Hansen predict the record cold temps we have had the last couple years??

Did ANY pro AGW scientist??

No. None did..

Ergo, their predictions ain't worth spit..

That's my personal opinion, but I am open-minded enough to change it, should the FACTS warrant it..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2221. NEwxguy
Quoting Floodman:


Nope, you're dead flat on it...the politicians in this country have made things pretty ugly. Now iof you know our history (and honestly, how many in here really do), we've been here before; the division in this country after the Revolutionary War, the Jackson Imperialism (very bad and nearly as divisive as our system today), the Civil War...

It's bad, but if we're careful and get the right leadership we can get out of it, but there's really no one in DC right now that can do it

Oh, damn...I started into politics...d'fly, stop me, huh?


Sheesh,buddy,you use to be better at avoiding those mine fields,you just walked from one into another one
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KarenRei:


What, exactly, does an entomologist's view on the population have to do with one of the world's most famous climatologists' views on climatology?


So he's not a "hyperbolic liar" as was stated earlier? I noticed once I asked about that statement I didn't see anything else out of ezcColony...LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KarenRei:


What, exactly, does an entomologist's view on the population have to do with one of the world's most famous climatologists' views on climatology?


And, don't forget the theologian's view...

All three of those authors appear to have quite the fan base and all three spell out the end of the earth as we know it. Although, honestly, while the cover is certainly eye-catching, I don't see Storms of My Grandchildren becoming quite the cultural icon the other two became.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2215. tkeith
Quoting FLdewey:
Never thought I would miss Reed making stuff up about weather. ;-)
lol..he's not gonna like that dewey :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2214. Ossqss
1991. errantlythought 3:23 PM EDT on July 27, 2010

"Half an hour's googling would make the vast majority of you feel utterly foolish. And I find it sad that the person I quoted didn't even bother to read far enough into the article to find this gem,

"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research that explores the downsides of large-scale wind power before significant resources are invested to build vast wind farms. “We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”"

This is how you look stupid on the internets. And I'm rather saddened that people are leaving because you knuckleheads cant deign to stop using the same arguments you preach that 'the other team' is using.

It's not all us vs them, children."
================================================

Thank you for the humor. Obviously, you did not realize the paper was linked in the article. Please ensure you read what I stated again so you don't misinterpret it again.

"Just be careful what you ask for. It might not be what you expect, since we have no clue as to what the alternate use of realtime energy will do to us vs the stored energy we use today.

Paper linked in the article and is free. "

Just in case you care to read the paper and not the article. Some people are just amazingly arrogant! LOL

Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
2213. breald
Quoting Floodman:


SO, by your reckoning, Fermi should be considered a liar and a failure because he predicted that any nuclear chain reaction on earth outside of a containment had a great chance of igniting the atmosphere...he was wrong obviously, so he must be a liar?

See, now this is the problem with posting things here...I don;t know if ezcColony is serious, being facetious...I don't know if this is a he or a she, how old this person is, I have no context to measure a response by...I mean calling HAnsen, a noted and respected planetary climatologist a liar is pretty stout, you know?


Flood, this is the only way they know how to "win' the argument.This is exactly what the conservative party does with news. They alter tapes to only show what they want you to perceive, and sadly it works on most people.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
FOX is about to run a story. The Teaser by Neil Cavuto just now was " New Claims by the Climate Change Believers".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TxMarc71:


Are you really going to base your conclusion off of the skewed facts that you just posted?? Man I hate to be critical but, your post is the epitome of ignorance. Saying that global warming conclusions have only been based on 30 yeears of satellite data is like trying to argue that the earth is only six-thousand years old..its really just ignorant. I am NOT going to detail all of the methods that are used ofor obtaining data on global warming. However, I will heavily reccomend that you do some research on the subject before you come in here and base your ignorant arguement on pure hog-wash and partial facts...Go learn all of the FACTS surrounding the subject then you can come up with a much more eduacated conclusion and maybe you wont look so ignorant when you post your opinions on global warming in a public place.



there is no need to be so harsh. That is why I hate being here sometimes you people can't have a constructive argument without criticizing one another. 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. ice is continuously melting and forming. I'm not going to get into a long argument and present scientific data such as cycles such as warm and cold pdo's like others have mention because i want to enjoy my vacation 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 and because we still don't know for sure the exact correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature the 30 years of reliable temperature measurements from satellite is all we have to distinguish global warming

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Michale:


There's a difference.

Fermi didn't have a financial stake in the position he took.....

The same cannot be said for Dr Hansen...

Which isn't to say that Hansen lied...

But it is undeniable he had and still has a huge financial and reputational stake in what his position is...



Fortunately for Dr. Hansen, he has virtually all of the peer-reviewed science backing his position! Whew!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2208. IKE
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
all quiet for now


The ACE total this month has got to be.... l-o-w, over the entire planet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HarleyStormDude52:



ok.. Im still new and stupid.. I looking at the grid.. 30W..(just bear with me) Just clue me in this once and I will get it forever!!!!
There is a tropical wave at 30W. It is visible on satellite imagery (Link) and confirmed as a wave in the National Hurricane Center's tropical weather discussion. It's always best to check the TWD to make sure that something is a real wave and not just a blob of clouds.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Anybody here ever read The Population Bomb? I'd shelve this one along with that one...that is if I had either of these titles.


What, exactly, does an entomologist's view on the population have to do with one of the world's most famous climatologists' views on climatology?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2205. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)

NMFC Norfolk Tropical Feed
No Active Tropical Warnings in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico
By Maritime.CDO@navy.mil (NMFC CDO) from Naval Maritime Forecast Center Norfolk Virginia. Published on .

As of Tue 27 Jul 2010 20:30:02Z




2010 Storms
All Active Year


Atlantic

East Pacific

Central Pacific

West Pacific
92W.INVEST
Indian Ocean

Southern Hemisphere
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52266
2204. Michale
FLdewey,

FALSE. I call my IT guy a denier because he swears I make up half of the issues I have with my hardware.

Oh.. I see.. Because YOU don't use it in that manner, no one else does either?? :D


So you connect being called a "denier" to the Holocaust? Sounds like you watch the program too. ;-)

I haven't watched network or cable TV in 6 years.. :D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2203. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
Quoting IKE:
Tropical weather outlook for planet Earth....nothing in any basin.
all quiet for now
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52266
This makes a solid week of 100F air temps and 115-125F heat indexes:


Savannah Hunter, Georgia (Airport)
Updated: 33 min 2 sec ago
Scattered Clouds
99 °F
Scattered Clouds
Humidity: 56%
Dew Point: 81 °F
Wind: 9 mph from the South
Pressure: 30.01 in (Falling)
Heat Index: 120 °F
(!!!!!)

Heat index here hit 126F two days ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting earthlydragonfly:


I believe its the politicians fault.. They have made this, our country, a state of divide and conquer. Its hard to get anywhere in the world when you think of the person on the other side of the debate, isle, color, place of orgin as a enemy or advisary. Instead we all own these problems as human beings no matter what the subject of the debate, GW, world hunger, lack of hurricanes, who is the hottest rockstar, less filling, taste great... etc etc.... Once we understand that, we then and only then begin to HEAR each other... But we must first be the ones to listen first....

But then again, I could be full of manure..


Nope, you're dead flat on it...the politicians in this country have made things pretty ugly. Now iof you know our history (and honestly, how many in here really do), we've been here before; the division in this country after the Revolutionary War, the Jackson Imperialism (very bad and nearly as divisive as our system today), the Civil War...

It's bad, but if we're careful and get the right leadership we can get out of it, but there's really no one in DC right now that can do it

Oh, damn...I started into politics...d'fly, stop me, huh?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TxMarc71:


Are you really going to base your conclusion off of the skewed facts that you just posted?? Man I hate to be critical but, your post is the epitome of ignorance. Saying that global warming conclusions have only been based on 30 yeears of satellite data is like trying to argue that the earth is only six-thousand years old..its really just ignorant. I am NOT going to detail all of the methods that are used ofor obtaining data on global warming. However, I will heavily reccomend that you do some research on the subject before you come in here and base your ignorant arguement on pure hog-wash and partial facts...Go learn all of the FACTS surrounding the subject then you can come up with a much more eduacated conclusion and maybe you wont look so ignorant when you post your opinions on global warming in a public place.


there is no need to be so harsh. That is why I hate being here sometimes you people can't have a constructive argument without criticizing one another. 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. ice is continuously melting and forming. I'm not going to get into a long argument and present scientific data such as cycles such as warm and cold pdo's like others have mention because i want to enjoy my vacation 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 and because we still don't know for sure the exact correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature the 30 years of reliable temperature measurements from satellite is all we have to distinguish global warming

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.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2199. tkeith
Quoting will45:


well admin did a lot to help it lol.
I just read back a little Will...

all I can say is I'll be glad when November gets here, then we can smear each other about politics AND global warming...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There is no single instrument measuring climate change. Instead there are thousands of measuring devices spread across the globe, on land, under the sea and in the air.

The climate system is a complex, interactive system consisting of the atmosphere, land surface, snow and ice, oceans and other bodies of water, and living things. The atmospheric component of the climate system is what we generally refer to as climate: climate is often defined as ‘average weather’. Climate is usually described in terms of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation and wind over a period of time, ranging from months to millions of years.

Countless empirical tests of numerous different hypotheses have now built up a massive body of Earth science knowledge. This repeated testing has refined the understanding of many aspects of the climate system, from deep oceanic circulation to stratospheric chemistry. Sometimes a combination of observations and models can be used to test planetary-scale hypotheses. For example, the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere observed after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo provided key tests of particular aspects of climate models.

Climate science in recent decades has seen an increasing rate of advancement, particularly in field research and notably through the evolution of measuring climate change methodology and tools, including the models and observations that support and enable the research. During the last four decades, the rate at which scientists have added to the body of knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic processes has accelerated dramatically. As scientists incrementally increase the totality of knowledge, they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals.

Temperature When measuring climate change this is a primary and can be measured or reconstructed for the Earth's surface, and sea surface temperature (SST).

Precipitation (rainfall, snowfall etc) offers another indicator of relative climate variation and may include humidity or water balance, and water quality.

Biomass and vegetation patterns may be discerned in a variety of ways and provide evidence of how ecosystems change to adapt to climate change.

Sea Level measurements reflect changes in shoreline and usually relate to the degree of ice coverage in high latitudes and elevations.

Solar Activity can influence climate, primarily through changes in the intensity of solar radiation.

Volcanic Eruptions, like solar radiation, can alter climate due to the aerosols that are emitted into the atmosphere and alter climate patterns.

Chemical composition of air or water can be measured by tracking levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and measuring ratios of oxygen isotopes. Research indicates a strong correlation between the percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the Earth's mean temperature.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2197. IKE
Quoting NEwxguy:


Yeh,I'm still amazed at how personal a GW discussion gets,certain individuals just lose control,lol,theres some great drugs out there to help with this.


And I've never understood why.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2196. Michale
Quoting earthlydragonfly:
But then again, I could be full of manure..


With an avatar like that??

Doubtful... :D

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Twinkster:
Global Warming if true is speculative. We are taking data that we have obtained from satellite over the last 30 years and trying to make it seem that what ever data we have over 30 years gives us enough knowledge to say humans are causing global warming


Last time I checked the earth has a history of around 6 billion years and there have been time periods of warm and cold

cold such as the ice ages and warm such as the carboniferous period in which co2 levels were drastically higher than they are today. The carboniferous period and the decay of the large forests from that time period give us todays fossil fuels. Realistically the co2 we are giving off from burning fossil fuels is only a mere fraction of the co2 present in that time period.

I don't want to make this a political issue but many assign categories for who or who does not believe global warming

democrats(liberals)- believe in global warming
republicans(conservatives)- don't believe in global warming

I consider myself a democrat and i don't believe in global warming because the facts that the IPCC, politicians, and whatever yoiu want to consider al gore don't add up

don't make global warming a political issue

Last time i checked 30 years of reliable observable data based on satellite is only .0000005% of earth's history


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.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2194. Michale
Quoting Floodman:


SO, by your reckoning, Fermi should be considered a liar and a failure because he predicted that any nuclear chain reaction on earth outside of a containment had a great chance of igniting the atmosphere...he was wrong obviously, so he must be a liar?

See, now this is the problem with posting things here...I don;t know if ezcColony is serious, being facetious...I don't know if this is a he or a she, how old this person is, I have no context to measure a response by...I mean calling HAnsen, a noted and respected planetary climatologist a liar is pretty stout, you know?


There's a difference.

Fermi didn't have a financial stake in the position he took.....

The same cannot be said for Dr Hansen...

Which isn't to say that Hansen lied...

But it is undeniable he had and still has a huge financial and reputational stake in what his position is...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HarleyStormDude52:



ok.. Im still new and stupid.. I looking at the grid.. 30W..(just bear with me) Just clue me in this once and I will get it forever!!!!


Ok I think I can rad it now.. Lesser Antilles..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ezcColony:


In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom lies from him today?

What it boils down to is that he practices poor science. He has elevated himself into stardom using hyperbolic statements, such as coal cars should be looked upon as death cars. Despicable!!!


Off by 300%? Did you not follow the link above that analyzes Hansen's predictions? I'll relink it for you. It compares the predictions up to the point of analysis data available at the time, 2003. Hansen made three predictions representing different scenarios of GHG concentrations. He listed scenario "B" as the most likely. B is the red line, while green, blue, and purple are various ways to measure current forcings:



How is that "300% off"? Or did you mean temperatures, not forcings? Let's look at that, too:



Again, how is that "300% off"?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2191. will45
Quoting tkeith:
dogma rules the day...


well admin did a lot to help it lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2190. Michale
Quoting Neapolitan:


As just pointed out, Dr. Jones didn't exactly say that. Here are the relevant parts of the BBC interview:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


Thanx, Neo.. Much appreciated..

So, from a (cough) respected climate scientist..

No statistically-significant global warming since 1995

Thanx again... :D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2189. xcool



here come wave gfs cmc ngp
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15603
Quoting ezcColony:


In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom lies from him today?

What it boils down to is that he practices poor science. He has elevated himself into stardom using hyperbolic statements, such as coal cars should be looked upon as death cars. Despicable!!!


SO, by your reckoning, Fermi should be considered a liar and a failure because he predicted that any nuclear chain reaction on earth outside of a containment had a great chance of igniting the atmosphere...he was wrong obviously, so he must be a liar?

See, now this is the problem with posting things here...I don;t know if ezcColony is serious, being facetious...I don't know if this is a he or a she, how old this person is, I have no context to measure a response by...I mean calling HAnsen, a noted and respected planetary climatologist a liar is pretty stout, you know?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2186. tkeith
dogma rules the day...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Floodman:


You got that right...to be honest, I was lurking most of the day (kind of busy at work) but I get really tired of "smug with no data" types so I had to jump in...it's a nasty habit of mine and I really need to work on that, you know?


I believe its the politicians fault.. They have made this, our country, a state of divide and conquer. Its hard to get anywhere in the world when you think of the person on the other side of the debate, isle, color, place of orgin as a enemy or advisary. Instead we all own these problems as human beings no matter what the subject of the debate, GW, world hunger, lack of hurricanes, who is the hottest rockstar, less filling, taste great... etc etc.... Once we understand that, we then and only then begin to HEAR each other... But we must first be the ones to listen first....

But then again, I could be full of manure..
Member Since: July 1, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 1681
Quoting NEwxguy:


wow,if I went back to the beginning of todays blog and did that,I could read the whole blog in 10 seconds


yeah, wouldn't be must about the tropics to read if we did that...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 2234 - 2184

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 JeffMasters

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