Dr James Hansen - Doing the back stroke on AGW...

[skookerasbil]

Dang..........the members of the religion these days..............PISSED!!

Im hearing that Trump is actually going to be referencing Mr Hansen moving forward and that Dr Judith Curry is being considered for a post in the administration!

The alarmists.............they be getting the big one s0ns >>>


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hardly.

“Stopping human-made climate change is inherently difficult, because of the nature of the climate system: it is massive, so it responds only slowly to forcings; and, unfortunately, the feedbacks in the climate system are predominately amplifying on time scales of decades-centuries.

The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future.

The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it.

If you read that and think that Hansen has pronounced us free of threat, you're simply lying to yourself.

Funny:

To date, you have not provided any empirical proof of any threat... Hansen just reaffirmed that any perceived threat is still very unlikely and unproven..

The wheels have come off your AGW choo-choo train.... Hansen just let the cat out of the bag.. The Alarmist heads are exploding...

 

[skookerasbil]

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
Trump and Pruitt Will Make America Gasp Again



Paul Krugman DEC. 9, 2016

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hansen lets the cat out of the bag... Trump gets elected and the UN gets the Catholic Church to now spread their propaganda and keep the socialist power grab alive ... The European Oligarchy is desperately trying to keep their failed one world government agenda/power grab alive..

Catholic Church: New Priests Will be Expected to Preach Global Warming

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist
Trump and Pruitt Will Make America Gasp Again



Paul Krugman DEC. 9, 2016

Krugman is a fool... I'm waiting for the dumb ass to explode...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The current crop (actually the last several crops) of CMIP GCMs hindcast rather well. It's generally the first thing you check with a model - before attempting to make projections or releasing it to the public. The point you and all your Drethren skip blithely over is that NO ONE has ever created a climate model that could recreate anything even vaguely resembling the climate's past century and a half of behavior without including anthropogenic global warming - the thing you all insist is a hoax and a lie and a fabrication.

You're stupid Billy, but you're not so stupid that you don't know what that means.

Adjusting to get correlation is not hind-casting... Its Voodoo science..

The models do not match reality...

Both were WRONG.....

 

[Crick]

The "adjusting" to produce your graphic was accomplished by Dr Spencer.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

An in depth, objective and detailed evaluation of CMIP5 model performance:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

The "adjusting" to produce your graphic was accomplished by Dr Spencer.

HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

An in depth, objective and detailed evaluation of CMIP5 model performance:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Hotwhopper - Miriam (Slandering Sue) O'Brien is not a reputable site or person. Hell they even sent old lying NASA scientists who were caught in lies to her to make their case knowing they were lies.. And whala here it is and YOU cited it... This article has been shown fraud and deception.. Yet you continue to cite it... Says a lot about your character..

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL You poor lying little cocksucks. Sea Ice at both poles at record lows. Arctic temperatures repeatedly going above freezing in the midst of the Arctic night. 2014 sets record for warmth. 2015 breaks that record. 2016 is warmer than both 2014 and 2015. Forest fires after Thanksgiving destroys towns in Tennessee.

You will not and cannot face reality because it is against you politics. You are born suckers, people that have to live in alternative realities because of being incapable of functioning in the real world.

 

[ding]

LOL You poor lying little cocksucks. Sea Ice at both poles at record lows. Arctic temperatures repeatedly going above freezing in the midst of the Arctic night. 2014 sets record for warmth. 2015 breaks that record. 2016 is warmer than both 2014 and 2015. Forest fires after Thanksgiving destroys towns in Tennessee.

You will not and cannot face reality because it is against you politics. You are born suckers, people that have to live in alternative realities because of being incapable of functioning in the real world.

Which is exactly what one would expect in an interglacial cycle.
I wouldn't be surprised if global temperatures rose another 1.4C to 2.4C because of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Trump and Pruitt Will Make America Gasp Again



Paul Krugman DEC. 9, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

Photo



Many people voted for Donald Trump because they believed his promises that he would restore what they imagine were the good old days — the days when America had lots of traditional jobs mining coal and producing manufactured goods. They’re going to be deeply disappointed: The shift away from blue-collar work is mainly about technological change, not globalization, and no amount of tweets and tax breaks will bring those jobs back.

But in other ways Mr. Trump can indeed restore the world of the 1970s. He can, for example, bring us back to the days when, all too often, the air wasn’t safe to breathe. And he’s made a good start by selecting Scott Pruitt, a harsh foe of pollution regulation, to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Make America gasp again!

Much of the commentary on the Pruitt appointment has focused on his denial of climate science and on the high likelihood that the incoming administration will undo the substantial progress President Obama was beginning to make against climate change. And that is, in the long run, the big story.

After all, climate change is an existential threat in a way local pollution isn’t, and the installation of the Trump team in power may mean that we have lost our last, best chance for a cooperative international effort to contain that threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/o...est&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Dumb fucks think that Trump will bring back the kind of brainless jobs that they are qualified for. Not going to happen. All this is for one purpose, to increase the profits and income of the investors. That they pollute the air and water, is of no consequence to these people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump and Pruitt Will Make America Gasp Again



Paul Krugman DEC. 9, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

Photo



Many people voted for Donald Trump because they believed his promises that he would restore what they imagine were the good old days — the days when America had lots of traditional jobs mining coal and producing manufactured goods. They’re going to be deeply disappointed: The shift away from blue-collar work is mainly about technological change, not globalization, and no amount of tweets and tax breaks will bring those jobs back.

But in other ways Mr. Trump can indeed restore the world of the 1970s. He can, for example, bring us back to the days when, all too often, the air wasn’t safe to breathe. And he’s made a good start by selecting Scott Pruitt, a harsh foe of pollution regulation, to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Make America gasp again!

Much of the commentary on the Pruitt appointment has focused on his denial of climate science and on the high likelihood that the incoming administration will undo the substantial progress President Obama was beginning to make against climate change. And that is, in the long run, the big story.

After all, climate change is an existential threat in a way local pollution isn’t, and the installation of the Trump team in power may mean that we have lost our last, best chance for a cooperative international effort to contain that threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/trump-and-pruitt-will-make-america-gasp-again.html?rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Dumb fucks think that Trump will bring back the kind of brainless jobs that they are qualified for. Not going to happen. All this is for one purpose, to increase the profits and income of the investors. That they pollute the air and water, is of no consequence to these people.

Krugman LOL

Japan and the USA listened to Krugamn and all they have to show for it is no growth and record debt

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL You poor lying little cocksucks. Sea Ice at both poles at record lows. Arctic temperatures repeatedly going above freezing in the midst of the Arctic night. 2014 sets record for warmth. 2015 breaks that record. 2016 is warmer than both 2014 and 2015. Forest fires after Thanksgiving destroys towns in Tennessee.

You will not and cannot face reality because it is against you politics. You are born suckers, people that have to live in alternative realities because of being incapable of functioning in the real world.

Which is exactly what one would expect in an interglacial cycle.
I wouldn't be surprised if global temperatures rose another 1.4C to 2.4C because of it.

OK, let us look at the source of the top graph. As you have pointed out, it is from NASA, so let us see what NASA fully says;

Global Warming : Feature Articles
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center.NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

See what happens when one goes to the sources of these assholes.

 

[Old Rocks]

And that is why Dingleberry will not post links.

 

[ding]

And that is why Dingleberry will not post links.

I got the link for the data from you, lol.

 

[ding]

LOL You poor lying little cocksucks. Sea Ice at both poles at record lows. Arctic temperatures repeatedly going above freezing in the midst of the Arctic night. 2014 sets record for warmth. 2015 breaks that record. 2016 is warmer than both 2014 and 2015. Forest fires after Thanksgiving destroys towns in Tennessee.

You will not and cannot face reality because it is against you politics. You are born suckers, people that have to live in alternative realities because of being incapable of functioning in the real world.

Which is exactly what one would expect in an interglacial cycle.
I wouldn't be surprised if global temperatures rose another 1.4C to 2.4C because of it.

OK, let us look at the source of the top graph. As you have pointed out, it is from NASA, so let us see what NASA fully says;

Global Warming : Feature Articles
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center.NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

See what happens when one goes to the sources of these assholes.

So... how many data points do you believe they had for the four previous interglacial transitions?

 

[ding]

And that is why Dingleberry will not post links.

When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacial cycles?

 

[flacaltenn]

SHOCK: The ‘Father of global warming’, James Hansen, dials back alarm

The upshot is that there is already much more climate change “in the pipeline” without any further increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). That does not mean the problem is unsolvable, but it does mean that we will need to decrease the amount of GHGs in the relatively near future.

In other words, no matter what rate we reduce the emissions now, the changes that will happen are going to be significant. In order to avoid even more significant changes, we need to be changing the generation of energy for electricity and transportation as quickly as possible. And that will take decades. In the meantime, the changes already foreordained by the present amount of GHGs will cost us dearly.

Probably "the pipeline" will have much less effect than previously thought, because in this change of Hansen attitude is the implied failure of the Climate Sensitivity numbers which have been constantly revised DOWN for nearly 2 decades. Climate sensitivity actually include a SHORT TIME number ( which obviously was badly botched from way back in the 80s -- and it includes a LONG TERM number, which really is STILL a guess. And nobody knows IF and how feedbacks will affect the LTerm number.

Climate sensitivity is what converts POWER (the CO2 forcing number) to ENERGY (the resultant increase energy in the atmos and at the surface. ENERGY is time dependent quantity. So if Hansen now champions the "PONDEROUS" and slow thermo system that I've been telling you that it IS --- It's likely that the LTerm CSensity numbers are gonna result in LESS actually energy being added to the atmos and the surface, and spread out over LONGER time scales than any of the models used up til about 2010..

GEE --- does this mean we'll no longer see that see that expectation of temperature rising to mimic the CO2 Concentrations? You know -- the ones that assumed that the system OUTPUT (temp) needed to look EXACTLY like the INPUT (CO2) ??? Poor Crick. The end of that era of showing CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature.

Golly -- it appears I AM gonna live long to see the actual truth come out about the fear mongering and the hype.

 

[flacaltenn]

SHOCK: The ‘Father of global warming’, James Hansen, dials back alarm

The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries.

SO the consensus and AGW science is not so settled after all.. And not so much of an emergency as we were first led to believe..

The Father of Global Warming is now back stroking in an admission that we don't know how or why our climatic system on earth works...

Stunning.... Ponderously So....

Hansen has been spectacularly wrong on everything, but warmers still believe him.

He's been PURPOSELY wrong. He's an activist. And all the temperature book cooking at GISS/NASA is about to be undone. The result will be to show that the SATELLITE record has been right all along. And their attempts to both cover up "the pause" and "cool the 30s and 40s" will disappear.. THAT'S why he's singing a different tune.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's the OTHER reason Hansen is changing ships. He doesn't want to be associated with the oversell and hype of wind and solar. He's been writing FURIOUSLY about the adoption of a nuclear strategy to reduce CO2 emissions. And slightly bad-mouthing the current list of "alternatives" -- which NEVER WERE alternatives, but merely supplements.

He co-authored this article with 3 other noted Environmentalists.

Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change

Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.

To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.

The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking. Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity’s options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.

For example, a build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050. Accounting for increased global electricity demand driven by population growth and development in poorer countries, which would add another 54 reactors per year, this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario. We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years.

I'm sure his "change of heart" is to make certain that the PUBLIC and GOVT expectations include a TIME SCALE for adoption of a nuclear strategy. And thus -- the statement in this OP. Because lumbering ahead by tossing TOO much money into wind/solar is gonna be a regrettable mistake and will not make an appreciable dent in CO2 emissions.