Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[bobgnote]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2. Shocker of shockers. And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.

Rather than attempting to improperly parse the abstract, why not look at the contextual understandings provided by the actual text of the research paper?

"Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).
GHGs cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (5). There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)...

...Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 Wym2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4Wym2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings
(...)

of course it is important to realize that Dr Hansen's considerations took place back pre-2000 in an era when our planetary CO2 emissions were significantly lower than they currently are. If we had been prepared to act decisively and aggressively to tackle climate change back 12+ years ago, the more gradualist approach suggested by Hansen in this post, might well have had a shot at producing some good results, after a decade where the rate of emission increase has more than doubled it seems much more a case of wishful thinking on the part of Dr Hansen.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

You incoherent piece of shit! He was 'wrong and was actually doing some good science' is a conflicted statement. Read it again, and then jump to 2012. It's hot:

"There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)..." Go Hansen! Go Hansen. Fuck off, Wally. Quit leaving that queenie gap, under the long quotes, before you type your spam.

 

[daveman]

Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.

And there you are, still selfishly using electricity, gasoline, and petroleum.

Bastard.

 

[westwall]

The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night. You really think a one degree rise is going to be noticed? Really?

Are you really naive enough to believe that the change of global average temperature is only going to raise the air temperature where you are at by about 1 degree and that this is the only consequence of planetary Climate change? seriously?!

I can dig up any amount of paleo climate and written history from many periods in mans history when there was greater warming than there is today and not one of the terrible things you all claim will happen ever did.

You have tried so desperately to remove the RWP and the MWP from the historical record but sadly for you there are still people out there who read real books and they know the lies for what they are.

You are failing on an epic scale and it's going to be fun to watch the wheels come off.

 

[westwall]

regurgitating old things is what conservatives do

Ignoring historical fact is what libs do.

 

[westwall]

Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy

WillDeliverMarch 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Dr. Hansen has been called a climate science rock star! Here’s a link to a presentation to the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
Dr. Hansen describes the Climate Crisis that is occuring now and gives some insight into possible actions for local people to take to encourage their governments to take action to reduce CO2 emmissions.

Dr. James Hansen on Global Warming.......


"not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting"


Game, Set, MATCH!

 

[westwall]

I've been calling Fathead a fucktard and a bitch of a charlatan, but he keeps running after Trakar. What am I doing wrong?

Fuck off, Fathead. Nobody will miss you, you faking bitch. If you quit spamming, we can get to Trakar's and O.R.'s posts, without sorting your bitch-spam out, first.

Fattie, you are so stupid, somebody has to tell you your farts are made out of shit and methane, but you keep eating your own shit, before the methane can heat up the planet and get you dead. Fuck off and die.

Yeppers, nice liberla feel good lefty, allways complaining about bad ol pubs doing bad things. Yet it's allways you asshats wanting others to die.

What a loser!

 

[westwall]

too funny

maybe we're all on ignore and the con poster is in a private con-circle-jerk?

Sure thing Dante, just make sure you include all the AGW fraudsters in your collective circle jerk as well. That's all they've been doing for the last 30 years, sucking off the public tit and what have we gotten for 100 billion in research grants? The global temp can be lowered by one degree in 100 years for the trivial investment of 76 trillion dollars....maybe.

What a great investmen that 100 bil was. Gosh, if we give them another 100 bil, maybe they can tell us how to tie our shoes more efficiently.

 

[bobgnote]

I've been calling Fathead a fucktard and a bitch of a charlatan, but he keeps running after Trakar. What am I doing wrong?

Fuck off, Fathead. Nobody will miss you, you faking bitch. If you quit spamming, we can get to Trakar's and O.R.'s posts, without sorting your bitch-spam out, first.

Fattie, you are so stupid, somebody has to tell you your farts are made out of shit and methane, but you keep eating your own shit, before the methane can heat up the planet and get you dead. Fuck off and die.

Yeppers, nice liberla feel good lefty, allways complaining about bad ol pubs doing bad things. Yet it's allways you asshats wanting others to die.

What a loser!

I'm an independent non-partisan, and you are a drunk punk, who can't spell, with your ass on the line. Something's going wrong, with you and the planet. We don't get to keep you and the human habitat, so you have to go, someday, maybe soon. Have another slurp of booze and fart, you shitty 'pub;' see if that improves your posts. Read this, lololol, and eat shit:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-today-climate-sensitive-carbon-dioxide.html

" . . . in this week's issue of the journal Nature, paleoclimate researchers reveal that about 12-5 million years ago climate was decoupled from atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. New evidence of this comes from deep-sea sediment cores dated to the late Miocene period of Earth's history.

During that time, temperatures across a broad swath of the North Pacific were 9-14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations remained low--near values prior to the Industrial Revolution.

The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth's climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

The findings also demonstrate that the climate of modern times more readily responds to changing carbon dioxide levels than it has during the past 12 million years.

"This work represents an important advance in understanding how Earth's past climate may be used to predict future climate trends," says Jamie Allan, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research. -unquote

Don't forget to eat shit, you punkass drunk. Actually, what you do after dinner is your own business.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy

WillDeliverMarch 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Dr. Hansen has been called a climate science rock star! Here’s a link to a presentation to the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
Dr. Hansen describes the Climate Crisis that is occuring now and gives some insight into possible actions for local people to take to encourage their governments to take action to reduce CO2 emmissions.

Dr. James Hansen on Global Warming.......


"not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting"


Game, Set, MATCH!

Not so fast there Con-Man.. Unfortunately, we were doing a SPECTACULAR job of cleaning up the aerosols part of that thru the 2000 period. So the "offsetting" was largely off'd..

Perhaps we should have left well enough alone. Trying to help folks breathe in Pittsburgh might have put the earth in a lurch..

 

[bobgnote]

And then there's the recent study, posted severally, which claims CO2 is more closely coupled to warming, than in ancient reviews:

Today's climate more sensitive to carbon dioxide than in past 12 million years

Greenland is hot:

Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F | ThinkProgress

There goes the thick, perennial ice, which is the most important ice:

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

You really have to be an asshole, to mistake what Hansen is warning us about with his remarks, about CH4:

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - METHANE

Any questions? This cherry-pick of Hansen-2000, for retard-rant exercises shows how skeptics are like living-dead queers, who pushed their dose of HIV, through tricks, baths, shooting speed, and more tricks, all the way, to full-blown AIDS and death. Go get 'em, church-ladies. Hot links!

 

[Trakar]

I can dig up any amount of paleo climate and written history from many periods in mans history when there was greater warming than there is today and not one of the terrible things you all claim will happen ever did.

Please do (dig them up, that is), the best available evidence indicates that today's annual, globally averaged temperature, is warmer than any period in the last several million years. Modern humans have only existed for a few hundred thousand years. Given this, you are either looking at early, incomplete and inaccurate temperature data, or you have some revolutionary information regarding human evolution up your sleeve,...either way, I'd be interested in seeing any evidences you feel compellingly support your assertions.

You have tried so desperately to remove the RWP and the MWP from the historical record but sadly for you there are still people out there who read real books and they know the lies for what they are.

You are failing on an epic scale and it's going to be fun to watch the wheels come off.

There may have been some regionally warm times associated with the RWP and there was definitely broader regional warming during the MWP, but neither of these seem to have been anything like the scale and magnitude of the current global warming.

 

[Trakar]

regurgitating old things is what conservatives do

Ignoring historical fact is what libs do.

I find a great deal of accuracy in both statements.

 

[Trakar]

Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy

WillDeliverMarch 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Dr. Hansen has been called a climate science rock star! Here’s a link to a presentation to the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
Dr. James Hansen on Global Climate Change | 2GreenEnergy
Dr. Hansen describes the Climate Crisis that is occuring now and gives some insight into possible actions for local people to take to encourage their governments to take action to reduce CO2 emmissions.

Quote-mine much?

(Contextomy - the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. - excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)

Dr. Hansen's contextual reference, primarily looking at pre-21rst century conditions in the last few decades of the 20th century, and based upon the state of understanding more than a decade ago:

"But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change."

Of course, abstracts are more like "teasers" than good sources of information or reference, the real meat of this decade+ old paper is in the body of the paper where we find the qualified arguments and findings.

"...We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario. This scenario focuses on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming. This interpretation does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO2 over aerosols. However, we suggest that it is more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed...
...Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 Wym2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4Wym2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, we must note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols (4, 23). Fossil fuels contribute only a minor part of the non-CO2 GHG growth via emissions that are not essential to energy production..."

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem with most of the deniers here is that they very much want none of this to be true. And are willing to ignore reality in order to claim it is not true.

The rest of us would like for none of this to be true, also. However, we have learned from long experiance that ignoring reality is a really dumb thing to do. Because reality will not ignore us, and will remind us of it's existance in a usually very unpleasant manner.

We are now clearly seeing the consequences of the increase of the GHGs in the atmosphere. From the cryosphere to the increase in extreme weather events. And at a much faster rate than predicted by the 'Alarmists'. But for many the reaction seems to like that of the North Carolina GOP.

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps we should have left well enough alone. Trying to help folks breathe in Pittsburgh might have put the earth in a lurch.

Well, if the aerosols and ghgs were not the result of human contributions in the first place, you might have a point. The problem arose from trying to eliminate just one aspect of the human emissions instead of dealing with the overall emissions problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

A point here. Were India and China to suddenly lower their emissions, we would get an immediate, decade, spike in temperatures. This is the Faustian Bargain Dr. Hansen described so well.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2. Shocker of shockers. And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.

I thought Hansen was a global warming zombie who was trying to convince us Co2 was the culprit so he could take over the world and get rich?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2. Shocker of shockers. And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.




Abstract

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.


As Arte johnson would say on Laugh In...."veeeeerrrryy interesting".


http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

BTW, this proves how ignorant the skeptic community is when they are just now discovering a paper published 12 years ago.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2. Shocker of shockers. And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.




Abstract

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.


As Arte johnson would say on Laugh In...."veeeeerrrryy interesting".


http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

Since yall are 12 years behind, I guess should expect you guys will run across this paper 8 years from now

[0804.1126] Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

Combined, GHGs other than CO2 cause climate forcing comparable to that of CO2 [2, 6], but growth of non-CO2 GHGs is falling below IPCC [2] scenarios. Thus total GHG climate forcing change is now determined mainly by CO2 [69].

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2. Shocker of shockers. And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.

Rather than attempting to improperly parse the abstract, why not look at the contextual understandings provided by the actual text of the research paper?

"Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).
GHGs cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (5). There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)...

...Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 Wym2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4Wym2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings
(...)

of course it is important to realize that Dr Hansen's considerations took place back pre-2000 in an era when our planetary CO2 emissions were significantly lower than they currently are. If we had been prepared to act decisively and aggressively to tackle climate change back 12+ years ago, the more gradualist approach suggested by Hansen in this post, might well have had a shot at producing some good results, after a decade where the rate of emission increase has more than doubled it seems much more a case of wishful thinking on the part of Dr Hansen.

He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels. Remember? Scenario's A, B, and of course C. Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.