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: 2084 - 2034

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

2084. Jax82
Man i wish we could get back to the WEATHER.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2083. xcool
stop gw
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
Quoting Michale:


Wasn't it Dr Jones of the ERU (AGU??? something like that) who said that there has been no appreciable global warming since 1998??

There are those pesky facts again...


Jones said it was 1995, but that's irrelevant. he did say that for around a decade and a half, "there has been no Global Warming."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/02/14/climate-scientist-phil-jones-no-global-warming-since-1995 .php
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2081. xcool
btwntx08 :0
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
2080. will45
Quoting Jeff9641:


The bans are being handed out left and right.


yes and this is the reason . Please do not engage in personal attacks or bickering. Material not conforming to these standards should be flagged with the button and ignored.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:


It is a small percentage who responded to the survey.


Alrighty. Do you have a source to back that claim up?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If we reduce emissions here by taxation, regulation and then recession due to a loss of jobs to overseas manufacturers but the overseas manufacturers have an equally large increase in emissions, have we really made it a better world?

Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2076. xcool
The Long Ranger shows how this hurricane season is appearing to be a blend of 2005, 2008 and 1998. The blend of the those three seasons with the European 500 mb mean forecast for August-October is right in line.

The Big Dog, no longer able to take his wrath out on the human-run government agencies, decides to go after the CFS, showing how bad its forecast was for the La Nina back in February. I also show how the Frontier Research Center model beat it like Scarlett O'Hara's mule on this. Both models are now saying a top-five La Nina is on the way, in line with the early cold PDO La Ninas of the 1950s (which by the way, the SOI, currently over 18 in 30-day figure, is in line with July 1950 and July 1955)

Thanks for reading. Ciao for now.

joe b
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
2075. NEwxguy
Quoting Floodman:


Yeah, he got a little peeved at me for calling him out on a personal attack (I WUMailed him) and he..**SNIFF!** he blocked me!


Another notch in your belt,how are you!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
WOW dare I say it? I miss the the blog when there is an active "something" to watch. It looks like a GW free for all on here?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Michale:


You have to admit... The guy dances great.. :D



Yuppers. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2071. xcool
omgggggggggggggg dnot hear about gw
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
2070. Michale
Quoting Snowlover123:
Dr. Willie Soon believes that AGW is not a working factor

http://www.accuweather.com/video/115379757001/willie-soon-co2-not-responsible.asp?channel=earth

And an IPCC scientist thinks that 30 years of Global Cooling are up for us. Yes, an IPCC scientist!

http://www.accuweather.com/video/71303439001/30-years-of-global-cooling.asp?channel=earth



Wasn't it Dr Jones of the ERU (AGU??? something like that) who said that there has been no appreciable global warming since 1998??

There are those pesky facts again...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2069. xcool
July 27th, 2010
Early last week I discussed the potential for the development of Tropical Storm Bonnie later in the week. Long-range models correctly predicted the increasing thunderstorm activity across the tropics the second and third week of July, which did lead to the development of Tropical Storm Bonnie. Fortunately, Bonnie formed very near a large upper-level low pressure system which helped to keep its intensity in check. So the models did a fair job in at least identifying that the conditions would be suitable for development last week.

We can often follow pulses of increased tropical activity starting in the Indian Ocean, progressing eastward across the West Pacific and eventually reaching all the way to the Atlantic Basin. Computer models are getting better at predicting these periods of increased likelihood of development. The current models are predicting that drier, sinking air is now moving into the Atlantic Basin.





Figure 1 is from the climate forecast system website (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjo.shtml). It depicts areas of sinking air (reddish-brown) and rising air (green) in 5 day intervals starting on July 25th. Note the deep reddish-brown area of sinking air forecast to dominate much of the Atlantic Basin over the next week. The sinking air moves out after about the first week of August and is replaced by the green color of rising air by the 9th of August. More rising air means increased thunderstorms across the Atlantic Basin, and an increasing chance of tropical development.

Figure 2, below, from the Santa Barbara, CA Research Group (http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/asr/mjo_forecasts.htm) represents another forecast for the next few weeks. This one predicts what’s called “Outgoing Long-wave Radiation” or “OLR” for short. It’s a little complex to explain fully here, but OLR is greatest when thunderstorm activity is less across the tropics. More thunderstorms, on the other hand, means decreased OLR. The blue areas in Figure 2 represent decreased OLR, meaning increasing thunderstorms. The reverse is true for the areas of greens and yellow.






Figure 2 is also indicating that rising air, meaning increased thunderstorms, moves into the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea after about the 4th of August, peaking the second and third week of August. While a prediction of increased thunderstorm activity alone doesn’t mean an increased chance of tropical development, wind shear is also forecast to diminish over the next few weeks. The combination of lower wind shear and increased thunderstorm activity is pointing toward a burst of tropical cyclone development starting around the 10th of August.

This will likely be the real start to the 2010 hurricane season. After about August 10th, we may experience very few days without at least one active named storm in the Atlantic Basin through about mid October. Use the next 5-10 days to complete any remaining hurricane preparations, as I don’t think we’ll be seeing such a prolonged break in activity until mid October.


by Chris Hebert .




Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
Is KOTG still on? Or did he get axed too??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
guys give it a rest on GW
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 115093
2065. Michale
Quoting Snowlover123:


A quarter of meteorologists agree with the hypothesis of AGW. Is that better?


You have to admit... The guy dances great.. :D

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:


As I said in 2013, I asked for a peer-reviewed paper.


And in your video it was not 3/4 who disagreed with global warming. It was half. And it was not all meteorologists. It was those who chose to respond. And the percentage who responded was very low.


A quarter of meteorologists agree with the hypothesis of AGW. Is that better?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's a laugh for the enlightened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1o1p_ly7Yw&feature=player_embedded

I embedded this yesterday and it got yanked (maybe they didn't watch the whole video - hmmm, where have I heard that before...) So here's just the link.

If you're not a paranoid neocon you'll think it's funny. The reporter (though it has nothing - well, almost nothing - to do with the story) is a former Marine.

It was from a Huffington Post post yesterday. Shows members of Congress running from a reporter asking a simple question...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Willie Soon believes that AGW is not a working factor

http://www.accuweather.com/video/115379757001/willie-soon-co2-not-responsible.asp?channel=earth

And an IPCC scientist thinks that 30 years of Global Cooling are up for us. Yes, an IPCC scientist!

http://www.accuweather.com/video/71303439001/30-years-of-global-cooling.asp?channel=earth

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ok! Woke up from my Global Warming dream, it also included FLdewey's cat "vorticity" wearing a suit giving Al Gore a lecture about Global Warming. *Deep breath* oh well. LOL.

Remember if there's anything you want me to do just let me know FLdewey, ok?

~MiamiPurrrrrrrrricanes09. Like what I did there huh?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WildWillyFL:


John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center. Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University. Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris). Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project. William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology. This could go on forever...


Hmmm...in 2003, Dr. John Christy (the first name in your list) stated the following: "Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." (This despite the fact that Christy has en evangelical background).

Chylek never said he didn't believe in AGW; he merely stated in 2007 that climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 could be significantly less than the IPCC estimate.

Idso is funded by ExxonMobil. 'Nuff said.

Michaels is funded in large part by the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. Therefore, ditto.

Allègre is not a completel skeptic; in 1990, he wrote, "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century"

Akasofu is a member of the pro-Big Oil Heartland Institute.

...and so on, and so forth. Yes, this could go on forever: the contrarians keep bringing up folks who either believe in AGW, or who have vested interests in it not being real. Either way, y'all are gonna have to do better, methinks.

Next!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2058. Michale
Quoting jpsb:
How about Dr Gray, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray#Stance_on_global_warming


Are you kidding!!!??

What does Dr Gray know about anything!!??

He is just the foremost expert on hurricanes...

(/sarcasm)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The AGW Cult - Explained

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of AGW debate. Many supporters of AGW are not fully aware of the extent to which other supporters may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in AGW environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare the following patterns to the situation you are familiar with. This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern that you have been indoctrinated into the AGW cult. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “AGW scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is AGW supportive. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

The AGW supporter displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its ideals and regards this belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the validity.

The AGW activists dictate, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to change a light bulb, change the oil in their cars, marry their pets, and so forth).

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its activists and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah (who paid to have her touch down there!), a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

Supporters have a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The activists are not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

The activists teach or imply that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

The activist induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

Subservience to the activists require members to cut ties with family and friends who do not subscribe to AGW, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

AGW supporters are preoccupied with bringing in new members.

AGW supporters are preoccupied with making money.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the cause of AGW.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other AGW supporters.

The most loyal AGW supporters (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they stop supporting (or even consider to stop supporting) the cause of AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2055. Michale
Quoting Floodman:


I doubt seriously he knows less about Climatology than you...you keep shortchanging yourself


So much for no more personal attacks, eh??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mikatnight:


I guess I missed where he went off. Was gonna send him a WUmail, but when I clicked on him he was gone. Damn, he was doing so well. Oh well, at least you and St. Simons are still here. Oh, I'm doing well thank you!


Yeah, he got a little peeved at me for calling him out on a personal attack (I WUMailed him) and he..**SNIFF!** he blocked me!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2052. jpsb
How about Dr Gray, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray#Stance_on_global_warming
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jeff9641:
I wonder if this SSIG guy practices the green movement or is he another AL Gore flying jets into the Tropisphere and runnning $36,000 elec bills.


Al Gore groupie!!!!1
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2050. xcool



Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:


Yes! A better planet would be lovely!

If the motiviation weren't false...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Am I missing something or is 1% a pretty low probability of anything happening?

Quoting jasoniscoolman2010x:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2046. Michale
Quoting Floodman:


The subject of that post was JFlorida...you're really not very good at this are you?


Any particular reason why you are being so insulting?? I have been advised to chill out..

Perhaps you should take the same advice, no??



By the way, take a few minutes and post some of that data you keep referencing, will you? You see, I'm not a rabid AGW proponent and I'm very interested in seeing what it is you keep talking about...


Why should I bother?? About a dozen people have posted links that refute the AGW theory? They have all been met with ridicule and scorn from the AGW fanatics..

It's become obvious to a thinking rational person that posting link to facts doesn't do any good. Those who believe in the AGW religion will do so, regardless of any facts to the contrary...

Like I said, although it may be hard to believe, I DO have better things to do than to try and convince the pope that there is no god.

Like laugh at KEEPEROFTHEGATE's cartoons.. :D

Peace..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Floodman:


Yep, and two out of three dentists prefer Crest too...


lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2043. xcool
rob go to

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=31
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
2042. angiest
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
I see geochemists, geophysicists, mathematicians, etc in your list. When you include people who are not meteorologists or climatologists in your list, it can go on forever. I agree with you there.


There's a pretty decent chance that geophysicists have studied, oh historical geology, for instance. Plus, atmospheric sciences can be considered a discipline within geophysics.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


You're confusing Weather VS. Climate. Meteorologists don't study the climate system, but they're open to their own opinion. But my question is: Why did you even ask if any meteorologists had any published peer reviewed papers, when they don't even study the Climate System?

Thank you.

According to my video, almost a third of meteorologists thought that Global Warming is "a scam."


Yep, and two out of three dentists prefer Crest too...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2040. NEwxguy
Quoting kuppenskup:
Wow-Came directly to the blog without checking anything in the tropics. Just by reading the first 30 seconds of the blog I can tell there is absolutely nothing out in the tropics worth talking about. Am I correct?


Dying to know what ever gave you that idea???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:


Sorry but not one person has linked to a peer-reviewed paper by a climatologist or meteorologist denying anthropogenic global warming.


Please view Comment 2013. It would also be nice if you stopped changing the criteria.

According to my video that you claimed that you watched, 3/4 of Meteorologists disagreed with the hypothesis of AGW. is that enough for you?

-Snowlover123
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2036. xcool
Member Since: September 26, 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 15670
GW this...GW that...AHHHHHHHHH!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 2084 - 2034

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.

Local Weather

Overcast
81 °F
Overcast