Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[flacaltenn]

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.

Are you saying that all those models run in 2000 with dreadful consequences were garbage because Hansen et al had NO IDEA what emissions would look like 10 years later?
Critical thinking -- go buy a wad..

 

[westwall]

Well, I still advocate that we try to limit the high-end range, no sense in having to get really good at genetic modifcation\engineering just to survive as a species; personally, I'm still hoping we don't have to rely upon our infantile geo-engineering skills as well.

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?

Speaking of someone daft and deranged.

Human body temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In healthy adults, body temperature fluctuates about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) throughout the day, with lower temperatures in the morning and higher temperatures in the late afternoon and evening, as the body's needs and activities change.[1] The time of day and other circumstances also affects the body's temperature. The core body temperature of an individual tends to have the lowest value in the second half of the sleep cycle; the lowest point, called the nadir, is one of the primary markers for circadian rhythms. The body temperature also changes when a person is hungry, sleepy, or cold.


Hyperthermia

Main article: Hyperthermia

Hyperthermia occurs when the body produces or absorbs more heat than it can dissipate. It is usually caused by prolonged exposure to high temperatures. The heat-regulating mechanisms of the body eventually become overwhelmed and unable to deal effectively with the heat, causing the body temperature to climb uncontrollably. Hyperthermia at or above about 40 °C (104 °F) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires immediate treatment. Common symptoms include headache, confusion, and fatigue. If sweating has resulted in dehydration, then the affected person may have dry, red skin.

In a medical setting, mild hyperthermia is commonly called heat exhaustion or heat prostration; severe hyperthermia is called heat stroke. Heat stroke may come on suddenly, but it usually follows the untreated milder stages. Treatment involves cooling and rehydrating the body; fever-reducing drugs are useless for this condition. This may be done through moving out of direct sunlight to a cooler and shaded environment, drinking water, removing clothing that might keep heat close to the body, or sitting in front of a fan. Bathing in tepid or cool water, or even just washing the face and other exposed areas of the skin, can be helpful.

With fever, the body's core temperature rises to a higher temperature through the action of the part of the brain that controls the body temperature; with hyperthermia, the body temperature is raised without the consent of the heat control centers.

[edit] Hypothermia

Main article: Hypothermia

In hypothermia, body temperature drops below that required for normal metabolism and bodily functions. In humans, this is usually due to excessive exposure to cold air or water, but it can be deliberately induced as a medical treatment. Symptoms usually appear when the body's core temperature drops by 1-2 °C (1.8-3.6 °F) below normal temperature.

Where oh where do i say INTERNAL temp changes olfraud? It should have been self evident (even to one such as you) that I was referring to external temps.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

 

[westwall]

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Just look at the consequences of a plentiful, energy dense, fuel supply!

There you have it in a nutshell folks. We want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL. They want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. It's really sad that Disney stilll has the Electric Light Parade ain't it??? Have Cinderella get there early and start swapping in those CFLs..

Yeppers, their version of a "sustainable" environment is one closely akin to the Bronze age. of course they and their leaders will still be able to jet around the world enjoying themselves and we peons will be allowed to serve them, our MASTERS, till they decide we are too much of a burden and have us eliminated.

 

[bobgnote]

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".

At least he noticed methane as a major "IF," which you never do, Queen Wally. I don't suppose you went over the AMEG site and read anything? God save your gay jubilee.

CH4 is methane, bitch. Fart at that, smell your shit thinking, for you.

 

[Trakar]

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?!

 

[Trakar]

Am I daft and deranged (don't answer that) or is the bolded a mistake. It SOUNDS like nonsense. CO2 is "mitigated" at 440ppm if the non-CO2 forcing is 0.5, but it's "mitigated" at 520ppm if the non-CO2 is the SAME????? WTF?

Hope that Trakar is lurking because I tried to tell him 48 hours ago that CO2 alone WITHOUT FEEDBACK is not capable of accelerated warming and this paper (last sentence above) seems to minimize the effects of any"natural emissions" feedback.

Holy Cow Winged One !! Where did you find this?

If these are the language and science skills you bring to the table it is little wonder that your understandings are so distorted and out of touch with mainstream scientific considerations. The trick is in figuring out if the problem is deliberate disingenuity, or merely a very poor science vocabulary and comprehension of the processes being discussed. I started explaining this already in a seperate discussion, try reading the actual paper, first of all, rather than trying to parse the abstract according to the confused misunderstandings you brought to the subject. If you continue to have problems I will be glad to simplfy the linguistic structure and break it down in a manner that most should be able to understand what is being said.

 

[Trakar]

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Just look at the consequences of a plentiful, energy dense, fuel supply!

There you have it in a nutshell folks. We want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL. They want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. It's really sad that Disney stilll has the Electric Light Parade ain't it??? Have Cinderella get there early and start swapping in those CFLs..

Please explain the contorsions necessary to take my words above and interpret from them the garbage that you ended up with.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Are you saying that all those models run in 2000 with dreadful consequences were garbage because Hansen et al had NO IDEA what emissions would look like 10 years later?
Critical thinking -- go buy a wad..

That is not even in the same ballpark with anything I stated, is english your first language?

 

[Trakar]

The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night.

Where oh where do i say INTERNAL temp changes olfraud? It should have been self evident (even to one such as you) that I was referring to external temps.

Words do have conventions and stating that the body "undergoes" a 20 degree swing, is stating that the body's temperature varies by 20 degrees. If that isn't what you intended, you should have used words that would have more accurately reflected what you meant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

regurgitating old things is what conservatives do

 

[Trakar]

regurgitating old things is what conservatives do

Apparently so.

 

[flacaltenn]

Am I daft and deranged (don't answer that) or is the bolded a mistake. It SOUNDS like nonsense. CO2 is "mitigated" at 440ppm if the non-CO2 forcing is 0.5, but it's "mitigated" at 520ppm if the non-CO2 is the SAME????? WTF?

Hope that Trakar is lurking because I tried to tell him 48 hours ago that CO2 alone WITHOUT FEEDBACK is not capable of accelerated warming and this paper (last sentence above) seems to minimize the effects of any"natural emissions" feedback.

Holy Cow Winged One !! Where did you find this?

If these are the language and science skills you bring to the table it is little wonder that your understandings are so distorted and out of touch with mainstream scientific considerations. The trick is in figuring out if the problem is deliberate disingenuity, or merely a very poor science vocabulary and comprehension of the processes being discussed. I started explaining this already in a seperate discussion, try reading the actual paper, first of all, rather than trying to parse the abstract according to the confused misunderstandings you brought to the subject. If you continue to have problems I will be glad to simplfy the linguistic structure and break it down in a manner that most should be able to understand what is being said.

U want I should BEG YOU? Or was drama your major??


<edited>
Forgit Trakar -- the jig is up.. I went back and figured it out.. The quote that confused me above, when posted on USMB was simply missing a couple plus and minus signs. If you really truely were concerned about my overall comprehension of the topic -- It would NEVER have taken such an elegant and dramatic ATTACK on me to "explain it to me".
Lemme show YOU how powerful this science thingy is... By logical deduction there are a few possibilities..

1) You KNEW it was a simple cut and paste error that was confusing me and chose to take the opportunity to attack me anyway.

OR

2) You had no f'in idea what my comprehension problem was because you never bothered to look at the source or the error didn't bother you because you didn't catch the obvious nonsense in the cut/paste version..

Either way --- won't matter.

Given your fraud I've basically just PROVEN to myself. Congrats man.. You're only the 2nd person (after one whole year on USMB) that's going on my ignore list. You and all of the rest of the drama queens in the science section are entertaining, but I don't have the time to waste with morons that pretend to follow along..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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&#8217;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.

 

[Trakar]

U want I should BEG YOU?

Not at all, but then I don't consider simple requests to be the equivilant of begging.

 

[flacaltenn]

U want I should BEG YOU?

Not at all, but then I don't consider simple requests to be the equivilant of begging.

Before you go on ignore... You should go back and read the EDITED version of my last post..

No wonder you can find no ethical problem with the AGW circus or any contradictions to their bible..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

U want I should BEG YOU?

Not at all, but then I don't consider simple requests to be the equivilant of begging.

B-4 you go on ignore?


gawd, some of these wingnuts are so special..

 

[Trakar]

U want I should BEG YOU?

Not at all, but then I don't consider simple requests to be the equivilant of begging.

B-4 you go on ignore?

gawd, some of these wingnuts are so special..

I was thinking overly sensitive and temperamental but I guess that's its own kind of "special."

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Flats can stand me, because I reply in some of the same language he uses. He cannot reply to someone that expresses themselves as ably as Trakar does, and that drives him up a wall.

 

[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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

too funny

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