Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A "glaciologist"????
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.............
What will it be next?
Hey Westwall...........soon, we'll be haring about Polarbearologists!!!!
This is a whole science to itself..........making up new "science guys".
Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper
Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?
This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names.
I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
You were accessing this medium in the 80's? Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time. I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.
The possibilities are mind boggling.
Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol
Under current conditions, water is a feedback, not a forcing agent nor driver of climate. It is not surprising to hear you assert such, however, given the level of scientific understanding apparent in your posts.
We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.
This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.
This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
Just a note in passing...
I find it amazing to be discussing this or anything in this forum with access to the accumulated knowledge of mankind at our fingertips.
You were accessing this medium in the 80's? Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time. I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.
The possibilities are mind boggling.
Back to our regularly scheduled debate.
This is your apparently unqualified, unevidenced and generally completely uncompelling assertion. Not fact, not science, not much other than unsupported and unfounded rhetoric.
I don't agree with your reading of the chart particulars (looks to me like the last 10,000 years or so are demonstrating unprecedented and unequalled warming after nearly 3.5 million years of cooling and then cool conditions) but I generally agree with the statement and don't find it surprising given that we have been in the midst of a planetary ice-age (any period of time in which substantive masses of water remain frozen on the surface throughout the year). The current ice-age began 2-3 million years ago, about the same time our remote ancestoral species were evolving into our man-like (hominid) predecessors. Our own civilization arose in the transition from glaciation to interglacial episodes.
Human factors removed, our planet would be cooling slowly back to cool. We would see glaciers slowly advancing, ice caps and snowlines would be gradually increasing in mass and in their advances down the mountain slopes. Sea levels would be getting lower both as the colder waters become more dense and as more snow gets added to the icecaps. Storms generally become less energetic and average temps get lower as summer average highs become more moderate.
It really speaks a lot to timing/providence, If our civilization had of arisen 10,000 years either way, and our impacts would probably be so masked by glaciation background climate inertia that we wouldn't have noticed or realized what was happening until it was far too late to have done anything about our actions. Causation would have definitely been more apparent and dramatic, but like I said, system inertias would have kept us from noticing as quickly. May be something worth adding to the list of considerations regarding Fermi's paradox.
Are you seriously saying that the instrument measurements and the proxies have the same sensitivity to quick changes in temperature?
I don't see where, in the above, that I said anything even approaching that. What I did say, is that the black and white dichotomous analogy you attempted to use to portray the differences between the accuracy and validity of the different assessment systems is not accurate nor supported by any evidences that I have seen or been offered.
That's generally due to the fact that all proxies approximate conditions through the interactions of a variety of factors rather than solely through the reactions to a single variable. That is precisely why multiple proxy studies are always preferrable to any single proxy study, the more varied the type of proxy the better. In combining the different systems the overlap commonality provides the signal as the outlier impacts of other factors are averaged out of the signal.
No, especially in shorter time-span intervals, most proxies are of more limited use. Given the multivariable nature of most proxies, any proxy study is going to be limited by the quality and limitations of the proxies used. I don't know anyone that wouldn't prefer to have calibrated and verified instrument data to work with but it isn't always available.
The cycle of ice ages seems to have started at the time that the Isthmus of Panama closed due to continental drift and interrupting the flow of ocean currents.
(we have to be careful about distinguishing between glaciations and ice ages, there is a tendency, even within the field to refer to glaciations - periods during an ice age when polar icecaps expand and spread toward the equator - as ice ages. Technically, ice ages exist whenever the planet possesses substantive expanses of year round surface ice.)
There are a number of things that happened at about this time. As Antarctica settled firmly onto the south pole the first glaciations which started to from icecaps in the mid-Antarctic mountain range 15 million years ago finally spread across the continent sealing its fate and dramatically impacting the planet's ocean circulations which were further disrupted by the Panamanian Isthmus formation, but I think the biggest cause goes back almost 50 million years ago when India's collision into the belly of asia began building the himalyan mountains (actually a lot of hountain building around the world occurred roughly coincident to the himalyan uplift). Mountain building always soaks up a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. Then about 3-4Mya the himalayan mountains got high enough that they dramatically altered atmospheric circulation patterns, bringing the monsoons to southern asia and deflecting warm moist air currents northward. These and a strong confluence of Milankovitch cycles probably worked in concert to start this ice age. For the most part the Milankovitch cycles are the primary factor involved in the glaciations and integlacials of the last few million years.
We are currently about 6000 before the next glaciation.
"were"
We've already overshot any subsequent glaciations for 30-50ky and maybe for at least the next couple of hundred thousand years (it'd take that long just to drop atmospheric CO2 concentrations down low enough where glaciations could occur). There is a very good chance we may have ended the current ice age entirely, we'll have to wait and see precisely where the new equilibrium point is.
Under current conditions, water is a feedback, not a forcing agent nor driver of climate. It is not surprising to hear you assert such, however, given the level of scientific understanding apparent in your posts.
Without the Sun, there is no warming at all.
It seems reasonable to think that the Sun is the Primary Driver of Climate and all other forcing agents except Cosmic Rays as conjectured by CERN are feedbacks.
The Sun, or rather the amount and character of solar radiance that intersects our planet, is the primary Driver of Climate, how our surface compostions and systems interact with the climate drivers are the various forcing factors that together, in concert, determine whether that energy exits the system with little delay leaving less energy in our planet's environment or lingers in our system adding more energy into our planet's surface environment.
Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper
Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?
You were accessing this medium in the 80's? Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time. I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.
The possibilities are mind boggling.
If memory serves me, the 80's were the period of text only bulletin boards. It was all very rudimentary.
The Sun, or rather the amount and character of solar radiance that intersects our planet, is the primary Driver of Climate, how our surface compostions and systems interact with the climate drivers are the various forcing factors that together, in concert, determine whether that energy exits the system with little delay leaving less energy in our planet's environment or lingers in our system adding more energy into our planet's surface environment.
Another and apparently very significant factor is how much of the TSI is reflected away before it gets to the surface.
Clouds. Thay ain't just for rain anymore...
The charlatans at CERN postulated that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and demonstrated that this effect might have as heavy an influence on our climate as CO2.
Whatever the actual causes and effects, the system seems to be too complex for our current understanding of the science to predict.
Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper
Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?
Dr. Hansen is a scientist who is paid by NASA to to one thing and then does something else. He has no credentials that identify him as a climatologist and is absolutely worshipped by the AGW Crowd.
That said, the start of every period of falling temperatures and increasing glaciation over the last half million or so years has always occurred when the CO2 was at the absolute maximum in the interglacial that preceded it.
CO2 always increased as the effect of the cause of rising temperature and always decreased as the effect of the cause of decreasing temperature. While the CO2 forcing may stop the onset of another period of glaciation, It has never been equal to this task in recent geologic history.
All forcings aside, though,I'm rooting for the Beach Boys' Endless Summer.
This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
That's not exactly true trakar. You posted under a different name on he JREF forum until fairly recently.
Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper
Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?
Dr. Hansen is a scientist who is paid by NASA to to one thing and then does something else. He has no credentials that identify him as a climatologist and is absolutely worshipped by the AGW Crowd.
This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
That's not exactly true trakar. You posted under a different name on he JREF forum until fairly recently.
Wallypunk, you need to put your replies 10 lines up, you and Wienerbitch need to quit hitting on Trakar, and read up on Hansen's later media:
NASA's Hansen: Would recent extreme "events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?" The "appropriate answer" is "almost certainly not." | ThinkProgress
NASAs Hansen: Would recent extreme events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm? The appropriate answer is almost certainly not.
By Joe Romm on Oct 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm
It is likely that 2012 will reach a record high global temperature.
Our top climatologist has a must-read, chart-filled analysis, How Warm Was This Summer?
The two most fascinating parts are
1.Hansens discussion of how scientists should answer questions about the recent record-smashing extreme weather events
2.Hansens analysis of what is coming in the next couple of years.
Lets start with the extremes:
Finally, a comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming. That answer, to the public, translates as no.
However, if the question were posed as would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?, an appropriate answer in that case is almost certainly not. That answer, to the public, translates as yes, i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event.
In either case, the scientist usually goes on to say something about probabilities and how those are changing because of global warming. But the extended discussion, to much of the public, is chatter. The initial answer is all important.
Although either answer can be defended as correct, we suggest that leading with the standard caveat you cannot blame¦ is misleading and allows a misinterpretation about the danger of increasing extreme events. Extreme events, by definition, are on the tail of the probability distribution. Events in the tail of the distribution are the ones that change most in frequency of occurrence as the distribution shifts due to global warming.
--------------------------
James Hansen's Must-See TED Talk: Starting To Reduce CO2 In 10 Years Is Too Late | ThinkProgress
Dr. Hansens talk began by describing his personal journey, originally studying Venus under Prof. James Van Allen and then working at NASA on an instrument to study Venus atmosphere. But after being asked to do some calculations of Earths greenhouse effect, Dr. Hansen resigned from the Venus mission to work full time studying Earths atmosphere because a planet changing before our eyes is more interesting and important its changes will affect all humanity.
Dr. Hansen and some colleagues published a 1981 paper in Science Magazine that concluded that observed warming of 0.4C in the prior century was consistent with the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2, that Earth would likely warm in the 1980s, and warming would exceed the noise level of random weather by the end of the century. We also said that the 21st century would see shifting climate zones, creation of drought prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels, and opening of the fabled Northwest passage. All of these impacts have since either happened or are now well underway.
Dr. Hansen went on to explain that, after speaking out for the need for an energy policy that would address climate change, the White House contacted NASA and Dr. Hansen was ordered to not speak to the media without permission. After informing the New York Times about the situation, the censorship was lifted and Dr. Hansen continued to speak out, justifying his actions with the first line of NASAs Mission Statement: To understand and protect the home planet. But there were consequences the reference to the home planet was soon struck from NASAs Mission Statement, never to return.
Dr. Hansen then went on to describe some of the recent science, including a detailed look at the Earths energy imbalance that was made possible by data from 3000 Argo floats that measure ocean temperature at different depths. Dr. Hansen said that the current imbalance of 0.6 watts/square meter (which does not include the energy already used to cause the current warming of 0.8°C) was equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day, 365 days per year.
Favorite denier myths such as its the Sun and CO2 lags temperature were addressed by Dr. Hansen and shown to be wrong or irrelevant. He also discussed how amplifying feedbacks in the past took small changes in temperature due to slight changes in the Earths orbit and either initiated or ended ice ages. He then said these same amplifying feedbacks will occur today if we do not stop the warming. The physics does not change.
Besides the impacts that are already occurring, Dr. Hansen said that if we do not stop the warming, we should expect sea levels to rise this century by 1 to 5 meters (3 to 18 feet), extinction of 20 to 50% of species, and massive droughts later this century. He said that the recent Texas heat wave, Moscows heat wave the year before, and the 2003 heat wave in Europe we exceptional events that now occur 25 to 50 times more often than just 50 years ago. Therefore, he concluded, we can say with high confidence that these heat waves were caused by global warming.
A key solution to climate change, Dr. Hansen said, is to out a simple, honest price on carbon. He proposed a Fee and Dividend approach where an increasing fee on CO2 is paid by fossil fuel companies and 100% of the proceeds are distributed to every legal resident. Besides lowering carbon emissions, this will also stimulate innovation and create millions of jobs.
Dr. Hansen said that if we wait 10 years to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we will need to reduce them at a rate of 15%/year to stabilize the climate. This, he said, would be difficult and expensive perhaps impossible.
------------------------------
James Hansen - No more conventional coal and carbon stabilisation below 350ppm | Beyond Zero Emissions
Beyond Zero Radio show spoke to James Hansen the world's leading climate scientist about his call for CO2 emissions stabilisation at 300-350ppm, well below todays 385ppm.
Interview with James Hansen - Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Studies - James Hansen on Coal, "pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants" on today's level of carbon, "385ppm is really going to produce a significantly different planet." Safe Greenhouse gas levels according to Hansen are down "at least to the 350ppm level"
---------------------------------
Emissions
Updates of Figure 16 in Hansen (2003), "Can we defuse the global warming time bomb?" [Figure also in PDF. Last modified: 2011/11/21]
Data source: Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2011. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2011. Data available at CDIAC web pages for 1850-2008 and for 2009-2010.
See More Figures.
-------------------------------------
Familiarize yourselves, with James Hansen's latest media, you queenie, neo-con, wingpunk sock-bitches. For the record, Hansen considers CO2 the main forcer, of temperatures, and he has been busy, at warning people, to cut emissions.
does anybody else find it sad that good scientist like Hansen became so obsessed over a controversial hypothesis that he was willing to forgo scientific methods to twist information to support it?
This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.
That's not exactly true trakar. You posted under a different name on he JREF forum until fairly recently.
Actually, it is exactly true. I never said that I didn't ever use other names in other forums, merely that this is a name I have used online for most of the last 25 years, and it is the only name I have ever used on these boards. if we go back to darpanet I'd have to add a couple more to the list. LIkewise with AOL, Juno and Prodigy. As to my JREF screen-name, the full story is online at JREF Forum , if anyone is interested.
