Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

[wirebender]

Q: What can a climate scientist bring to the table in a discussion on the climate among physicists?

A: The coffee.

Bent, you are a dumb fuck.

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


Curriculum Vitae

Download CV (PDF)
Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

The people coming out with the strongest climate statements concerning AGW are physicist. In fact, the Scientific Society that has the most scientists in it publishing articles concerning climate is the American Geophyical Union.

This is their statement concerning AGW;


AGU revises position on climate change

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Wow rocks. Who would have thought that you would go to so much trouble to prove me right. Hansen? The man whose ideology drives him to prostitute any education he may have? Laughing at you rocks. Laughing real loud.

 

[Old Rocks]

He holds a Phd in Physics. Do you? He is also regarded as the world's leading climatologist. And the people that make up the AGU are the most knowledgable in the world concerning climate.

You have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of science. Even to the point that others who reject AGW roll their eyes at your statements.

 

[Iridescence]

I'm not boasting that I know, it is instead that I don't know... but this makes better sense than to give all and out credit to 'us' alone.

The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study
The earth's climate has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

Earth Magnetic Field
The following figure shows the global temperature change from 1978 to 2006 for the lower troposphere from satellite data [http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg]. The red contour lines are the year 2000 magnetic field intensity contours (5000 nT contours) shown previously. The areas of greatest warming are where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the northern polar region, whereas the area of greatest cooling is where the magnetic field is at its greatest intensity in the southern polar region.


Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field - NASA Science

As remarkable as these changes sound, "they're mild compared to what Earth's magnetic field has done in the past," says University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier.

2012: No Geomagnetic Reversal

Geomagnetic reversal is the change in the magnetic field of the Earth, where the magnetic north pole shifts to the South Polar Region and the south magnetic pole shifts to the North Polar Region. Once this process is complete, our compasses would point toward Antarctica, rather than northern Canada. Polar shift is considered to be a less likely event that occurs a few times in the evolutionary timescale of the Solar System. There are a couple of examples of planets that have suffered a catastrophic polar shift, including Venus (which rotates in an opposite direction to all the other planets, therefore it was flipped upside down by some huge event, such as a planetary collision) and Uranus (which rotates on its side, having been knocked off-axis by an impact, or some gravitational effect caused by Jupiter and Saturn). Many authors (including the doomsayers themselves) often cite both geomagnetic reversal and polar shift as being one of the same thing. This isn’t the case.

*http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_cr.html*
Removing the considerable media hype, the Svensmark et al. results show that the solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays may be a part of the complicated interaction of solar activity and the Earth's climate. However, there is not much scientific evidence they they are the driving cause of the terrestrial warming, and there is sufficient counter-evidence to bring a lot of doubt to the "conclusion". This correlation is still being actively studied, but it appears that the controversy has been overblown for political reasons, not scientific ones.

This last reference is obviously my favorite one yet because Dr. Eric Christian clearly states that the methods used DO matter and that "the THEMIS spacecraft were designed to study substorms in the magnetosphere, a very different scientific topic than either the low (<4 km) clouds or the ultra-high energy galactic cosmic rays purported to affect climate. NASA has investigations in both areas, but they require very different insturments and spacecraft, and THEMIS cannot scientifically add to either topic."

It speaks volumes when amazingly empowered intellects know what and where their limits are.

 

[code1211]

Yep.

That tears it.

Dumping tons of crap into the atmosphere has no effect what so ever.

It's magnetic fields and sun spots.

So if the human race dumps tons of stuff of any description anywhere, that stuff causes global warming?

Good thesis.

Proof?

 

[daveman]

Well Dave I have to AGREE with your last post..........stevenbut I'm still keeping an eye on those pictures of yours,and this one is border-line,be careful Dave

Oh, fuck off, you fruitcake loser.

 

[daveman]

I'm looking at the letter now and there's a couple of graphs showing test results


Its mostly subject to peer review - a process I'm sure you find frightening.



Its possible that monkeys will fly out your ass, too. I don't really see what your intuitive gut feelings based on absolutely nothing should count for anything.

But you accept it from AGW cultists, who FEEL mankind is killing the planet.

No.

Ummm...yeah.

 

[daveman]

Q: What can a climate scientist bring to the table in a discussion on the climate among physicists?

A: The coffee.

Bent, you are a dumb fuck.

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


Curriculum Vitae

Download CV (PDF)
Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:

I notice he left out "profiting from the global warming scam".

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.​

 

[Big Fitz]

If you posted this idiotgram as a means to censor Olf Rocks comprehensive message you have failed.

I'm sorry, I didn't receive that psychogram. I lack the encryption you cultists call a thought process.

 

[daveman]

Thanks for posting a real authority; let the morons continue to echo each other in their denial of science in general and support of the kochroaches and dickcheneys of the dark side.

Hansen is a scam artist, you fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right, and all those other physicists all over the world that agree with him are the same, right? Something like 95% of them are scam artists, right?

Lordy, lordy, what a willfully ignorant ass you are.

 

[wirebender]

Right, and all those other physicists all over the world that agree with him are the same, right? Something like 95% of them are scam artists, right?

Lordy, lordy, what a willfully ignorant ass you are.

Lets see some actual evidence that 95% of physicists are on board with the AGW hoax rocks. Wishing it were so and actually being so are two entirely different things.

Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least a couple of Nobel winning physicists who will tell you flat out that AGW is a crock.

&#8220;I&#8217;m a skeptic. &#8230;Global Warming it&#8217;s become a new religion. You&#8217;re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that&#8217;s important is if the scientists are correct; that&#8217;s the important part.&#8221; &#8211; Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winning physicist)&#8220;The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we&#8217;re gazing into the energy future, not because it&#8217;s unimportant, but because it&#8217;s beyond our power to control.&#8221; &#8211; Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize winning physicist)

And while he didn't win a Nobel, Frederick Seitz, president Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences says:

&#8220;Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.&#8221; &#8211; Frederick Seitz

And lets not forget Hal Lewis who resigned from the APS because AGW charlatans had ruined the neighborhood.

Hansen isn't fit to polish any of these men's shoes and they all say that hem and his cronys are wrong.

Just for fun rocks, here is the latest failed prediction in a long long ........LONG string of failed predictions by your high priest hansen:

&#8220;Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It&#8217;s not a sure bet, but it is probable.&#8221;

Turns out El Nina is back. In typical fashion, reality turns out to be precisely the opposite of hansen's predictions.

 

[Iridescence]

Not to take up for any one specific... BUT in doing the research one will find that EVERY angle has been EXPLOITED for and by political gain. It just is and it will likely always be, but it is one of those necessary evils that I love to remind myself about.

If this be a challenge and the ranting could be refocused... on perhaps finding the method least manipulated by and for political gain. It seriously seems that the deeper one even goes into the NASA research sites available to the public the more openly it is admitted to being so. Perhaps I am mistaken, however. Would someone like to take this challenge?

 

[daveman]

Right, and all those other physicists all over the world that agree with him are the same, right? Something like 95% of them are scam artists, right?

Lordy, lordy, what a willfully ignorant ass you are.

Y'know, it's funny how you cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- except when it comes to fellow cultists.

Their motives are always pure and righteous and holy, right, Roxy?

 

[daveman]

Not to take up for any one specific... BUT in doing the research one will find that EVERY angle has been EXPLOITED for and by political gain. It just is and it will likely always be, but it is one of those necessary evils that I love to remind myself about.

If this be a challenge and the ranting could be refocused... on perhaps finding the method least manipulated by and for political gain. It seriously seems that the deeper one even goes into the NASA research sites available to the public the more openly it is admitted to being so. Perhaps I am mistaken, however. Would someone like to take this challenge?

AGW has always and only ever been about greater government control over individual lives and redistribution of wealth.

Period.

 

[Iridescence]

Not to take up for any one specific... BUT in doing the research one will find that EVERY angle has been EXPLOITED for and by political gain. It just is and it will likely always be, but it is one of those necessary evils that I love to remind myself about.

If this be a challenge and the ranting could be refocused... on perhaps finding the method least manipulated by and for political gain. It seriously seems that the deeper one even goes into the NASA research sites available to the public the more openly it is admitted to being so. Perhaps I am mistaken, however. Would someone like to take this challenge?

AGW has always and only ever been about greater government control over individual lives and redistribution of wealth.

Period.

You aren't reading the topic I started in the 'energy' section are you? The one on Crop Circles... and such?

 

[Big Fitz]

Right, and all those other physicists all over the world that agree with him are the same, right? Something like 95% of them are scam artists, right?

Lordy, lordy, what a willfully ignorant ass you are.

Lets see some actual evidence that 95% of physicists are on board with the AGW hoax rocks. Wishing it were so and actually being so are two entirely different things.

Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least a couple of Nobel winning physicists who will tell you flat out that AGW is a crock.

&#8220;I&#8217;m a skeptic. &#8230;Global Warming it&#8217;s become a new religion. You&#8217;re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that&#8217;s important is if the scientists are correct; that&#8217;s the important part.&#8221; &#8211; Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winning physicist)&#8220;The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we&#8217;re gazing into the energy future, not because it&#8217;s unimportant, but because it&#8217;s beyond our power to control.&#8221; &#8211; Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize winning physicist)

And while he didn't win a Nobel, Frederick Seitz, president Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences says:

&#8220;Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.&#8221; &#8211; Frederick Seitz

And lets not forget Hal Lewis who resigned from the APS because AGW charlatans had ruined the neighborhood.

Hansen isn't fit to polish any of these men's shoes and they all say that hem and his cronys are wrong.

Just for fun rocks, here is the latest failed prediction in a long long ........LONG string of failed predictions by your high priest hansen:

&#8220;Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It&#8217;s not a sure bet, but it is probable.&#8221;

Turns out El Nina is back. In typical fashion, reality turns out to be precisely the opposite of hansen's predictions.

AGW has entered the same level of intellectual exercise as conspiracy theory. All the science is but a thin scientifically flavored veneer over an emotional desire for a presupposition to be true. Corellating evidence is accepted, contrary evidence is rejected and all sorts of contrivances are used to justify the selection process.

Essentially all AGW believers believe so because they have a vested emotional interest for it to be true. Once you get into a discussion with them, you quickly see that they will use any claim to back up their obvious faith/insanity. Everything is caused by this crisis, and they will work to fit all these things into a cohesive rationalization of their desire to believe.

That is why you almost never get die hard believers to 'snap out of it', because it's not about proof. It's about belief. The stronger their zealotry, the more they preach, the better it is to just say, 'uh huh' and walk away bringing as many people not infected by the insanity away with you lest they get suckered too.

But those pre-disposed to this outcome will believe any evidence that supports it and are doomed to fall.

 

[konradv]

Skepticism has entered the same level of intellectual exercise as conspiracy theory. All the science is but a thin scientifically flavored veneer over an emotional desire for a presupposition to be true. Corellating evidence is accepted, contrary evidence is rejected and all sorts of contrivances are used to justify the selection process.

Essentially all skeptics believe so because they have a vested emotional interest for it to be true. Once you get into a discussion with them, you quickly see that they will use any claim to back up their obvious faith/insanity. Everything is caused by this crisis, and they will work to fit all these things into a cohesive rationalization of their desire to believe.

That is why you almost never get die hard believers to 'snap out of it', because it's not about proof. It's about belief. The stronger their zealotry, the more they preach, the better it is to just say, 'uh huh' and walk away bringing as many people not infected by the insanity away with you lest they get suckered too.

But those pre-disposed to this outcome will believe any evidence that supports it and are doomed to fall.

 

[wirebender]

Skepticism has entered the same level of intellectual exercise as conspiracy theory. All the science is but a thin scientifically flavored veneer over an emotional desire for a presupposition to be true. Corellating evidence is accepted, contrary evidence is rejected and all sorts of contrivances are used to justify the selection process.

Essentially all skeptics believe so because they have a vested emotional interest for it to be true. Once you get into a discussion with them, you quickly see that they will use any claim to back up their obvious faith/insanity. Everything is caused by this crisis, and they will work to fit all these things into a cohesive rationalization of their desire to believe.

That is why you almost never get die hard believers to 'snap out of it', because it's not about proof. It's about belief. The stronger their zealotry, the more they preach, the better it is to just say, 'uh huh' and walk away bringing as many people not infected by the insanity away with you lest they get suckered too.

But those pre-disposed to this outcome will believe any evidence that supports it and are doomed to fall.

Clearly you can't come up with any big words or complex ideas on your own konradv so you simply copy other's. Considering your track record, you were bound to get to this point.

 

[IanC]

konradv- I admit it is a much easier task to point out that a theory is incomplete and demonstrably insufficient to explain reality than it is to formulate a new and better theory. but the AGW theory is wrong in many areas and the projections and the conclusions drawn from them are even more farfetched. AGW has only one set of possibilities, the skeptical side has all the other possibilities.

 

[daveman]

Not to take up for any one specific... BUT in doing the research one will find that EVERY angle has been EXPLOITED for and by political gain. It just is and it will likely always be, but it is one of those necessary evils that I love to remind myself about.

If this be a challenge and the ranting could be refocused... on perhaps finding the method least manipulated by and for political gain. It seriously seems that the deeper one even goes into the NASA research sites available to the public the more openly it is admitted to being so. Perhaps I am mistaken, however. Would someone like to take this challenge?

AGW has always and only ever been about greater government control over individual lives and redistribution of wealth.

Period.

You aren't reading the topic I started in the 'energy' section are you? The one on Crop Circles... and such?

No, I haven't taken a look at it.