James Hansen Wishes he Wasn’t So Right about Global Warming

[BackAgain]

WestTroll is more ONE LINE RW Trash with Zero On Topic meat, ZERO.
NO articles, NO charts, NO graphs, and NOT even a paragraph in his own words..

Google search results

www.usmessageboard.com

`

Apu dumfuk: you’re leaving your spittle all over the screen.


;

 

[ding]

Then if you can be trusted with telling the truth, then I would accept it as being true.

Barring any deliberate misinterpretations or dishonest editing.

I'm happy knowing I know the truth and you don't. Makes this much easier.

 

[abu afak]

James Hansen is back with another dire climate warning​

11/02/2023

Climate scientist James Hansen is frustrated. And he’s worried.

For nearly 40 years, Hansen has been warning the world of the dangers of global warming. His testimony at a groundbreaking 1988 Senate hearing on the greenhouse effect helped inject the coming climate crisis into the public consciousness. And it helped make him one of the most influential climate scientists in the world.

Hansen has spent several decades as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and now at 82, he directs Columbia University’s Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions program.

In the years since his seminal testimony, many of Hansen’s basic scientific predictions about the Earth’s climate future have come true. Greenhouse gas emissions have grown, and global temperatures have continued to rise. The world’s glaciers and ice sheets are melting and sea level rise is accelerating.

But Hansen has been disappointed with the scientific community’s response to some of his more recent projections about the future of the warming Earth, which some researchers have characterized as unrealistically dire.

In particular, he was discouraged by the response to a paper he published in 2016, suggesting catastrophic ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, with widespread global effects, may be possible with relatively modest future warming.

Many researchers said such outcomes were unlikely. But Hansen described the paper as some of his most important work and a warning about the need for more urgent action.

Now he’s bracing himself for a similar reaction to his latest paper, published Thursday morning.

“I expect the response to be characterized by scientific reticence,” he said in an email to E&E News.

The new paper, published in the research journal Oxford Open Climate Change, addresses a central question in modern climate science: How much will the Earth warm in response to future carbon emissions? It’s a metric known as “climate sensitivity,” or how sensitive the planet is to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Hansen’s findings suggest the planet may warm faster than previous estimates have indicated. And while some experts say it’s possible, others suggest that he’s taken the results too far.

In studies, scientists often tackle the climate sensitivity question by investigating how much the Earth would warm if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations doubled their preindustrial levels. Prior to the industrial era, global CO2 levels hovered around 280 parts per million, meaning a doubling would land around 560 ppm.

Today’s CO2 levels have already climbed above 400 ppm, giving the question a growing relevance.

Climate sensitivity is a difficult metric to estimate. It hinges on a wide variety of feedback loops in the Earth’s climate system, which can speed up or slow down the planet’s warming.

As the Earth’s reflective glaciers and ice sheets melt, for instance, the planet can absorb more sunlight and warm at a faster rate. Forests and other natural ecosystems may absorb different amounts of carbon as the planet warms. Different types of clouds can both speed up or slow down global warming, and it’s still unclear how they will change as the Earth heats up.

The uncertainties around these factors have made it challenging for scientists to pin down an exact estimate for climate sensitivity. But they’ve chipped away at it in recent years.

For decades, studies generally suggested that the Earth should experience anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming with a doubling of CO2. But a 2020 paper narrowed the range to between 2.6 and 3.9 C, using multiple lines of evidence including climate models, the Earth’s response to recent historical emissions and the Earth’s ancient climate history.

The latest assessment report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change adopted a similar estimate, suggesting a likely range of 2.5 to 4 C with a central estimate around 3 C.

Hansen’s new paper, published with an international group of co-authors, significantly ups the numbers. It suggests a central estimate of around 4.8 C, nearly 2 degrees higher than the IPCC’s figure.

The paper relies largely on evidence from Earth’s ancient climate history. One reason? It’s unclear whether current climate models accurately represent all the relevant feedback effects that may affect climate sensitivity, Hansen and his co-authors argue. The planet’s past provides a clearer view of how the Earth has responded to previous shifts in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

The paper also suggests that global warming is likely to proceed faster in the near term than previous studies have suggested.

Under the international Paris climate agreement, world leaders are striving to keep global warming well below 2 C and below 1.5 C if at all possible. The new paper warns that warming could exceed 1.5 C by the end of the 2020s and 2 C by 2050.

A gradual global decline in air pollution, driven by tightening environmental regulations, is part of the reasoning. Some types of air pollution are known to have a cooling effect on the climate, which may mask some of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. As these aerosols decline in the atmosphere, some research suggests, this masking effect may fall away and global temperatures may rise at faster rates.

Hansen and his co-authors argue that better accounting for the declines in global aerosols should accelerate estimates of near-term global warming. Studies suggest that warming between 1970 and 2010 likely proceeded at around 0.18 C per decade. Post-2010, the new paper argues, that figure should rise to 0.27 C.

The findings should motivate greater urgency to not only cut greenhouse gas emissions but to eventually lower global temperatures closer to their preindustrial levels, Hansen suggests. That means using natural resources and technological means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Hansen also suggests that a controversial form of geoengineering, known as solar radiation management, is likely warranted.
[..........]

James Hansen is back with another dire climate warning

In a new paper, the influential climate scientist argues the Earth may be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. Others are less sure.

www.eenews.net

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

James Hansen is back with another dire climate warning​

11/02/2023

Climate scientist James Hansen is frustrated. And he’s worried.

For nearly 40 years, Hansen has been warning the world of the dangers of global warming. His testimony at a groundbreaking 1988 Senate hearing on the greenhouse effect helped inject the coming climate crisis into the public consciousness. And it helped make him one of the most influential climate scientists in the world.

Hansen has spent several decades as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and now at 82, he directs Columbia University’s Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions program.

In the years since his seminal testimony, many of Hansen’s basic scientific predictions about the Earth’s climate future have come true. Greenhouse gas emissions have grown, and global temperatures have continued to rise. The world’s glaciers and ice sheets are melting and sea level rise is accelerating.

But Hansen has been disappointed with the scientific community’s response to some of his more recent projections about the future of the warming Earth, which some researchers have characterized as unrealistically dire.

In particular, he was discouraged by the response to a paper he published in 2016, suggesting catastrophic ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, with widespread global effects, may be possible with relatively modest future warming.

Many researchers said such outcomes were unlikely. But Hansen described the paper as some of his most important work and a warning about the need for more urgent action.

Now he’s bracing himself for a similar reaction to his latest paper, published Thursday morning.

“I expect the response to be characterized by scientific reticence,” he said in an email to E&E News.

The new paper, published in the research journal Oxford Open Climate Change, addresses a central question in modern climate science: How much will the Earth warm in response to future carbon emissions? It’s a metric known as “climate sensitivity,” or how sensitive the planet is to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Hansen’s findings suggest the planet may warm faster than previous estimates have indicated. And while some experts say it’s possible, others suggest that he’s taken the results too far.

In studies, scientists often tackle the climate sensitivity question by investigating how much the Earth would warm if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations doubled their preindustrial levels. Prior to the industrial era, global CO2 levels hovered around 280 parts per million, meaning a doubling would land around 560 ppm.

Today’s CO2 levels have already climbed above 400 ppm, giving the question a growing relevance.

Climate sensitivity is a difficult metric to estimate. It hinges on a wide variety of feedback loops in the Earth’s climate system, which can speed up or slow down the planet’s warming.

As the Earth’s reflective glaciers and ice sheets melt, for instance, the planet can absorb more sunlight and warm at a faster rate. Forests and other natural ecosystems may absorb different amounts of carbon as the planet warms. Different types of clouds can both speed up or slow down global warming, and it’s still unclear how they will change as the Earth heats up.

The uncertainties around these factors have made it challenging for scientists to pin down an exact estimate for climate sensitivity. But they’ve chipped away at it in recent years.

For decades, studies generally suggested that the Earth should experience anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming with a doubling of CO2. But a 2020 paper narrowed the range to between 2.6 and 3.9 C, using multiple lines of evidence including climate models, the Earth’s response to recent historical emissions and the Earth’s ancient climate history.

The latest assessment report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change adopted a similar estimate, suggesting a likely range of 2.5 to 4 C with a central estimate around 3 C.

Hansen’s new paper, published with an international group of co-authors, significantly ups the numbers. It suggests a central estimate of around 4.8 C, nearly 2 degrees higher than the IPCC’s figure.

The paper relies largely on evidence from Earth’s ancient climate history. One reason? It’s unclear whether current climate models accurately represent all the relevant feedback effects that may affect climate sensitivity, Hansen and his co-authors argue. The planet’s past provides a clearer view of how the Earth has responded to previous shifts in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

The paper also suggests that global warming is likely to proceed faster in the near term than previous studies have suggested.

Under the international Paris climate agreement, world leaders are striving to keep global warming well below 2 C and below 1.5 C if at all possible. The new paper warns that warming could exceed 1.5 C by the end of the 2020s and 2 C by 2050.

A gradual global decline in air pollution, driven by tightening environmental regulations, is part of the reasoning. Some types of air pollution are known to have a cooling effect on the climate, which may mask some of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. As these aerosols decline in the atmosphere, some research suggests, this masking effect may fall away and global temperatures may rise at faster rates.

Hansen and his co-authors argue that better accounting for the declines in global aerosols should accelerate estimates of near-term global warming. Studies suggest that warming between 1970 and 2010 likely proceeded at around 0.18 C per decade. Post-2010, the new paper argues, that figure should rise to 0.27 C.

The findings should motivate greater urgency to not only cut greenhouse gas emissions but to eventually lower global temperatures closer to their preindustrial levels, Hansen suggests. That means using natural resources and technological means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Hansen also suggests that a controversial form of geoengineering, known as solar radiation management, is likely warranted.
[..........]

James Hansen is back with another dire climate warning

In a new paper, the influential climate scientist argues the Earth may be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. Others are less sure.

www.eenews.net

How many new nuclear reactors does Hansen think we need?

 

[AMart]

Scores of CLOWN DENIER OPs posted here from decades old Newspapers Mocking various/any source, yet few from the main one:
NASA's James Hansen who was RIGHT.

James Hansen wishes he wasn't so right about global warming

NEW YORK (AP) — James Hansen wishes he was wrong. He wasn't. NASA's top climate scientist in 1988, Hansen warned the world on a record hot June day 30 years ago that global warming was here and worsening.

apnews.com

​

NEW YORK (AP) — James Hansen wishes he was wrong. He wasn’t.​

​

NASA’s top climate scientist in 1988, Hansen warned the world on a record hot June day 30 years ago that global warming was here and worsening. In a scientific study that came out a couple months later, he even forecast how warm it would get, depending on emissions of heat-trapping gases.​

​

The hotter world that Hansen envisioned in 1988 has pretty much come true so far, more or less. Three decades later, most climate scientists interviewed rave about the accuracy of Hansen’s predictions given the technology of the time.​

​

Hansen won’t say, “I told you so.”​

“I don’t want to be right in that sense,” Hansen told The Associated Press, in an interview is his New York penthouse apartment. That’s because being right means the world is warming at an unprecedented pace and ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting.​

​

Hansen said what he really wishes happened is “that the warning be heeded and actions be taken.”​

[.......]​

​

`

Silly cult fucks,

 

[ding]

James Hansen is back with another dire climate warning​

11/02/2023

Climate scientist James Hansen is frustrated. And he’s worried.

For nearly 40 years, Hansen has been warning the world of the dangers of global warming. His testimony at a groundbreaking 1988 Senate hearing on the greenhouse effect helped inject the coming climate crisis into the public consciousness. And it helped make him one of the most influential climate scientists in the world.

Hansen has spent several decades as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and now at 82, he directs Columbia University’s Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions program.

In the years since his seminal testimony, many of Hansen’s basic scientific predictions about the Earth’s climate future have come true. Greenhouse gas emissions have grown, and global temperatures have continued to rise. The world’s glaciers and ice sheets are melting and sea level rise is accelerating.

But Hansen has been disappointed with the scientific community’s response to some of his more recent projections about the future of the warming Earth, which some researchers have characterized as unrealistically dire.

In particular, he was discouraged by the response to a paper he published in 2016, suggesting catastrophic ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, with widespread global effects, may be possible with relatively modest future warming.

Many researchers said such outcomes were unlikely. But Hansen described the paper as some of his most important work and a warning about the need for more urgent action.

Now he’s bracing himself for a similar reaction to his latest paper, published Thursday morning.

“I expect the response to be characterized by scientific reticence,” he said in an email to E&E News.

The new paper, published in the research journal Oxford Open Climate Change, addresses a central question in modern climate science: How much will the Earth warm in response to future carbon emissions? It’s a metric known as “climate sensitivity,” or how sensitive the planet is to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Hansen’s findings suggest the planet may warm faster than previous estimates have indicated. And while some experts say it’s possible, others suggest that he’s taken the results too far.

In studies, scientists often tackle the climate sensitivity question by investigating how much the Earth would warm if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations doubled their preindustrial levels. Prior to the industrial era, global CO2 levels hovered around 280 parts per million, meaning a doubling would land around 560 ppm.

Today’s CO2 levels have already climbed above 400 ppm, giving the question a growing relevance.

Climate sensitivity is a difficult metric to estimate. It hinges on a wide variety of feedback loops in the Earth’s climate system, which can speed up or slow down the planet’s warming.

As the Earth’s reflective glaciers and ice sheets melt, for instance, the planet can absorb more sunlight and warm at a faster rate. Forests and other natural ecosystems may absorb different amounts of carbon as the planet warms. Different types of clouds can both speed up or slow down global warming, and it’s still unclear how they will change as the Earth heats up.

The uncertainties around these factors have made it challenging for scientists to pin down an exact estimate for climate sensitivity. But they’ve chipped away at it in recent years.

For decades, studies generally suggested that the Earth should experience anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming with a doubling of CO2. But a 2020 paper narrowed the range to between 2.6 and 3.9 C, using multiple lines of evidence including climate models, the Earth’s response to recent historical emissions and the Earth’s ancient climate history.

The latest assessment report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change adopted a similar estimate, suggesting a likely range of 2.5 to 4 C with a central estimate around 3 C.

Hansen’s new paper, published with an international group of co-authors, significantly ups the numbers. It suggests a central estimate of around 4.8 C, nearly 2 degrees higher than the IPCC’s figure.

The paper relies largely on evidence from Earth’s ancient climate history. One reason? It’s unclear whether current climate models accurately represent all the relevant feedback effects that may affect climate sensitivity, Hansen and his co-authors argue. The planet’s past provides a clearer view of how the Earth has responded to previous shifts in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

The paper also suggests that global warming is likely to proceed faster in the near term than previous studies have suggested.

Under the international Paris climate agreement, world leaders are striving to keep global warming well below 2 C and below 1.5 C if at all possible. The new paper warns that warming could exceed 1.5 C by the end of the 2020s and 2 C by 2050.

A gradual global decline in air pollution, driven by tightening environmental regulations, is part of the reasoning. Some types of air pollution are known to have a cooling effect on the climate, which may mask some of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. As these aerosols decline in the atmosphere, some research suggests, this masking effect may fall away and global temperatures may rise at faster rates.

Hansen and his co-authors argue that better accounting for the declines in global aerosols should accelerate estimates of near-term global warming. Studies suggest that warming between 1970 and 2010 likely proceeded at around 0.18 C per decade. Post-2010, the new paper argues, that figure should rise to 0.27 C.

The findings should motivate greater urgency to not only cut greenhouse gas emissions but to eventually lower global temperatures closer to their preindustrial levels, Hansen suggests. That means using natural resources and technological means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Hansen also suggests that a controversial form of geoengineering, known as solar radiation management, is likely warranted.
[..........]

James Hansen is back with another dire climate warning

In a new paper, the influential climate scientist argues the Earth may be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. Others are less sure.

www.eenews.net

When the AMOC collapses he'll be singing a different tune and so will you.

 

[Crick]

When the AMOC collapses he'll be singing a different tune and so will you.

When do you think that will happen and what will have caused it?

 

[jc456]

Everyone who's serious takes me seriously here.
I put up more meaty posts than anyone.
Of course 80-90% of the posters are RW Trolls like YOU @sshole. The bread and butter of the Sewer that is USMB.
Hiker's 'contributions' here:

Google search results

www.usmessageboard.com

Pure NO CONTENT SCVM.

`

You post a whole lot of nothing

 

[ding]

When do you think that will happen and what will have caused it?

No telling when. If past performance is any indication it's still 2C away. As for why it will happen? Really? You don't know? Salinity and density changes due to temperature change and wind pattern changes due to solar variability changes.

 

[jc456]

No telling when. If past performance is any indication it's still 2C away. As for why it will happen? Really? You don't know? Salinity and density changes due to temperature change and wind pattern changes due to solar variability changes.

Ocean current and wobble orbit

 

[ding]

Ocean current and wobble orbit

And I believe they will discover the wobble - along with solar variability - affects wind currents more than temperatures and it's the wind currents coupled with salinity and density changes which is driving the ocean circulation cycles.

 

[Crick]

And I believe they will discover the wobble - along with solar variability - affects wind currents more than temperatures and it's the wind currents coupled with salinity and density changes which is driving the ocean circulation cycles.

Don't you feel as if you're putting the cart before the horse? You've already concluded what you believe is happening and now are hoping someone will find something to justify your jump. And what would be driving the salinity and density changes you mention?

While I'm here, when you say the wobble will affect wind current more than temperatures... how do you see the wobble affecting wind currents.

 

[ding]

Don't you feel as if you're putting the cart before the horse? You've already concluded what you believe is happening and now are hoping someone will find something to justify your jump.

No. I think they must study these cycles in depth because understanding them is key to understanding where the planet is going. They have been occurring for more than 3 million years. It's not something to gloss over. You can't just say orbital cycles and leave it at that. It actually has to be able to explain the trigger for glacial periods and the return to interglacial periods. The obvious answer is temperature. And the obvious answer for that is the ocean because that's where the heat is stored. And this makes 100% sense because of the unique landmass configuration of the planet, especially the northern hemisphere and it's sensitivity to temperature change.

 

[ding]

And what would be driving the salinity and density changes you mention?

The return to pre-glacial temperatures which is caused by the continued circulation of heat from the Atlantic to the Arctic OVER TIME. HEAT VERSUS TIME. THE ARCTIC IS STILL WARMING UP DUE TO THE CONTINUED HEAT FLOW FROM THE ATLANTIC.

 

[ding]

While I'm here, when you say the wobble will affect wind current more than temperatures... how do you see the wobble affecting wind currents.

Orbital changes effect the distance the solar radiation travels. Different distances traveled affect the strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface. So whether we are talking about changes to solar output or solar flares or orbital forcing it all effects the effective strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface which can influence or affect wind patterns which can then affect ocean circulation patterns.

The sun powers the wind by heating up parts of the earth more than others. Wind is the movement of air. The sun heats the air, and the warm air rises. This rising warm air makes the cooler air from the surrounding areas come in to replace it.​

​

Orbital forcing involves the redistribution of incoming solar energy, both latitudinally and seasonally. Thus, there are differential effects on the climate system that can lead to circulation changes, and there may be different responses to the forcing in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.​

​

Winds drive currents that are at or near the ocean's surface. Near coastal areas winds tend to drive currents on a localized scale and can result in phenomena like coastal upwelling. On a more global scale, in the open ocean, winds drive currents that circulate water for thousands of miles throughout the ocean basins.​

 

[jc456]

And I believe they will discover the wobble - along with solar variability - affects wind currents more than temperatures and it's the wind currents coupled with salinity and density changes which is driving the ocean circulation cycles.

Exactly, science

 

[jc456]

Don't you feel as if you're putting the cart before the horse? You've already concluded what you believe is happening and now are hoping someone will find something to justify your jump. And what would be driving the salinity and density changes you mention?

The irony. Got any reality that aligns with those models of yours?

 

[ding]

Exactly, science

Which apparently they can't do because they are too busy predicting the sky is falling because of an incremental trace amount of a weak GHG.

 

[jc456]

Which apparently they can't do because they are too busy predicting the sky is falling because of an incremental trace amount of a weak GHG.

And ignoring data

 

[Crick]

Orbital changes effect the distance the solar radiation travels.

Eccentricity is the only movement that changes orbital radius and it has the least effect. Obliquity changes the intensity of our seasons while Precession changes which hemisphere will have the most dramatic seasonal change. Obliquity has the largest impact on the glacial-interglacial cycle.

Different distances traveled affect the strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface. So whether we are talking about changes to solar output or solar flares or orbital forcing it all effects the effective strength of the solar radiation received at the planet's surface

As shown above, this is wrong

which can influence or affect wind patterns which can then affect ocean circulation patterns.

Vertical movement is driven by density. Broad circulation both of air and water is driven by the Coriolis force. The tides create short scale movements. Consisten wind patterns can also drive regional currents.

The sun powers the wind by heating up parts of the earth more than others.​

Like the seasons

Wind is the movement of air.​

We learn something new every day.

The sun heats the air, and the warm air rises. This rising warm air makes the cooler air from the surrounding areas come in to replace it.​

Why didn't the sun warm that cooler air?

Orbital forcing involves the redistribution of incoming solar energy, both latitudinally and seasonally. Thus, there are differential effects on the climate system that can lead to circulation changes, and there may be different responses to the forcing in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.​

​

Winds drive currents that are at or near the ocean's surface. Near coastal areas winds tend to drive currents on a localized scale and can result in phenomena like coastal upwelling. On a more global scale, in the open ocean, winds drive currents that circulate water for thousands of miles throughout the ocean basins.​

You've explained weather. What you haven't explained is how Milankovitch forcing melts millions of square miles of ice without a little help.