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

[jc456]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?
Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.[/B]

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

`

 

[abu afak]

Climate Change Models Were Right About Global Warming 30 years Ago—Including That of NASA Scientist James Hansen​

2/5/19 - Newsweek

Even 30 years ago, climate change models were doing a reasonably good job at predicting future global warming, a study has found.

Previously, climate change deniers had used model inconsistencies to raise doubts about the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Scientists say their research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, "should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts."

The team, from the University of California, Berkeley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NASA, found that 14 of 17 climate models produced between 1970 and 2007 were broadly correct in their predictions.
[.....]

Climate Change Models Were Right About Global Warming 30 years Ago

Climate scientists found that 14 of 17 climate models produced between 1970 and 2007 were broadly correct in their predictions, when differences in emissions were accounted for.

www.newsweek.com

`

 

[abu afak]

Satellite and balloon data accurately assessed the correlation coefficient of Co2 and atmospheric temps
Precisely ZERO - - - We could increase atmospheric Co2 10 fold from today's levels and IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?
Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.[/B]

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

`

 

[jc456]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?
Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.[/B]

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

`

Explain how co2 molecules can get hotter than what they absorb first

 

[EMH]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?
Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.[/B]

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

`

A hodgepodge of solar cycle and Co2 bullshit outed as bullshit by the satellites and balloons, and by every other measure except the surface of growing urban areas.

NO WARMING in the atmosphere
NO WARMING in the oceans
NO ongoing net ice melt
NO Breakout in Canes
NO Ocean Rise

 

[jc456]

A hodgepodge of solar cycle and Co2 bullshit outed as bullshit by the satellites and balloons, and by every other measure except the surface of growing urban areas.

NO WARMING in the atmosphere
NO WARMING in the oceans
NO ongoing net ice melt
NO Breakout in Canes
NO Ocean Rise

Because co2 cools not heat up. Dummasses don’t know physics

 

[EMH]

Because co2 cools not heat up. Dummasses don’t know physics

There really is no evidence that Co2 "holds" heat any more than any other gas. During night, the atmosphere cools, including Co2.

There is no empirical evidence that increasing or decreasing Co2 does anything, at all...

 

[multivita-man]

Hansen is correct, and we should all take heed.

I also wish I was wrong about ecological overshoot (and the resultant global climate change).

For some time, probably the last 20 years, I've accepted that the climate is changing and that humans are causing it.

For about the last 10 years, I've accepted that it's a serious problem that we need to do something - anything - about.

For about the last 5 years, I've accepted that we're entering a dangerous period in which we might experience really difficult consequences associated with a rapidly destabilizing climate - that we're making worse all the time.

But it wasn't until about maybe a year ago that I realized just how bad the situation might be and that I've probably been significantly underestimating how dire the situation is all along.

Worse, I realize now that even the agencies and leaders who have warned us about climate change for some time haven't really done much to change the equation. We've had Montreal, Kyoto, Paris, and now annual climate conferences, and still, the amount of methane goes up relentlessly, the amount of carbon goes up relentlessly - almost exponentially.

About 1-2 years ago, I realized that we're approaching a civilization-ending event. About a year ago, within the past year, I realize we're in the middle of a mass extinction event.

And within the past 6-9 months, I realize that not only are we in the middle of a mass extinction event, we may in fact be creating the mother of all mass extinctions - an event only matched by the End-Permian extinction event (252 million years ago) and the Great Oxidation Event (2-3 billion years ago). We're literally destroying everything that makes earth habitable.

I have about a 90-95% confidence level that a significant portion of the people who are alive in 2023 will be dead by 2043. I don't mean people who are middle age, either. I mean their children and grandchildren too. I've accepted this. My hope at this point is that something is left after it all goes to shit, and that they learn the limits to human growth, and that our superior brains and intelligence may not be the perfect adaptation to our environment that we think it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hansen is correct, and we should all take heed.

I also wish I was wrong about ecological overshoot (and the resultant global climate change).

For some time, probably the last 20 years, I've accepted that the climate is changing and that humans are causing it.

For about the last 10 years, I've accepted that it's a serious problem that we need to do something - anything - about.

For about the last 5 years, I've accepted that we're entering a dangerous period in which we might experience really difficult consequences associated with a rapidly destabilizing climate - that we're making worse all the time.

But it wasn't until about maybe a year ago that I realized just how bad the situation might be and that I've probably been significantly underestimating how dire the situation is all along.

Worse, I realize now that even the agencies and leaders who have warned us about climate change for some time haven't really done much to change the equation. We've had Montreal, Kyoto, Paris, and now annual climate conferences, and still, the amount of methane goes up relentlessly, the amount of carbon goes up relentlessly - almost exponentially.

About 1-2 years ago, I realized that we're approaching a civilization-ending event. About a year ago, within the past year, I realize we're in the middle of a mass extinction event.

And within the past 6-9 months, I realize that not only are we in the middle of a mass extinction event, we may in fact be creating the mother of all mass extinctions - an event only matched by the End-Permian extinction event (252 million years ago) and the Great Oxidation Event (2-3 billion years ago). We're literally destroying everything that makes earth habitable.

I have about a 90-95% confidence level that a significant portion of the people who are alive in 2023 will be dead by 2043. I don't mean people who are middle age, either. I mean their children and grandchildren too. I've accepted this. My hope at this point is that something is left after it all goes to shit, and that they learn the limits to human growth, and that our superior brains and intelligence may not be the perfect adaptation to our environment that we think it is.

For about the last 10 years, I've accepted that it's a serious problem that we need to do something - anything - about.

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

 

[BackAgain]

The rest of us are glad Hansen is so wrong.

Fun fact: the average temperature, globally, could be rising a bit; BUT that doesn’t mean that humanity has much, if anything, to do with that average global temperature rise.

 

[multivita-man]

For about the last 10 years, I've accepted that it's a serious problem that we need to do something - anything - about.

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

As many as you want. That will not solve our problem. Technological improvements in efficiency will likely make our problem worse. The simple way to explain why is a concept called "Jevons Paradox".

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use increases its demand, increasing, rather than reducing, resource use.[1][2] The Jevons effect is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[3] However, governments and environmentalists[needs update] generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the effect arising.[4]

In other words, suppose we come up with a magical cure that somehow enables us to grow to 9 billion, 10 billion, 11.5 billion people in the next 25-30 years while somehow squeezing resources out of the ground to 'sustain' this growth...improvements in efficiency will only encourage more production and more waste.

Sorry kids, but we're fucked. We just don't know it yet.

 

[multivita-man]

The rest of us are glad Hansen is so wrong.

Fun fact: the average temperature, globally, could be rising a bit; BUT that doesn’t mean that humanity has much, if anything, to do with that average global temperature rise.

Let's suppose your hopium is right -- what about all of the other ecological destruction? What about the forests we're clearing and not replacing nearly fast enough? What about all the water we're taking out of the ground and not replenishing fast enough? What about all the species we're wiping out of existence? Not only the big fauna but the insects and even the simpler organisms? You do realize that plankton is probably the world's most important carbon sink and we're a) killing it off, and b) adding so much carbon into the atmosphere that plankton could lose its ability to absorb it, thereby intensifying carbon increases?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As many as you want. That will not solve our problem. Technological improvements in efficiency will likely make our problem worse. The simple way to explain why is a concept called "Jevons Paradox".

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In other words, suppose we come up with a magical cure that somehow enables us to grow to 9 billion, 10 billion, 11.5 billion people in the next 25-30 years while somehow squeezing resources out of the ground to 'sustain' this growth...improvements in efficiency will only encourage more production and more waste.

Sorry kids, but we're fucked. We just don't know it yet.

As many as you want. That will not solve our problem.

We can't solve our CO2 problem by using CO2-free energy?

improvements in efficiency will only encourage more production and more waste.

Improvements in efficiency will reduce waste.

What about all the water we're taking out of the ground and not replenishing fast enough?

Nuclear powered desalination.

You do realize that plankton is probably the world's most important carbon sink and we're a) killing it off, and b) adding so much carbon into the atmosphere that plankton could lose its ability to absorb it, thereby intensifying carbon increases?

Fertilize the oceans.

 

[multivita-man]

We can't solve our CO2 problem by using CO2-free energy?

It takes CO2 to make all of that "free energy". Moreover, it takes years to build all of those mythical CO2-saving nuke plants, and if that's not enough, we will have added another 1-2 billion to the planet by the time your master plan is achieved.

Improvements in efficiency will reduce waste.

It will not because it will increase aggregate use, even if you (hypothetically, though not really) reduce aggregate waste.

Nuclear powered desalination.

Dreams are cool, but this plan of yours has no basis in reality.

You do realize that plankton is probably the world's most important carbon sink and we're a) killing it off, and b) adding so much carbon into the atmosphere that plankton could lose its ability to absorb it, thereby intensifying carbon increases?

Fertilize the oceans.

 

[EMH]

thereby intensifying carbon increases?

which, according to the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, is doing absolutely nothing...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It takes CO2 to make all of that "free energy". Moreover, it takes years to build all of those mythical CO2-saving nuke plants, and if that's not enough, we will have added another 1-2 billion to the planet by the time your master plan is achieved.



It will not because it will increase aggregate use, even if you (hypothetically, though not really) reduce aggregate waste.



Dreams are cool, but this plan of yours has no basis in reality.

Iron Fertilization - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Iron fertilization is a technique that would artificially add iron to the ocean’s surface, triggering massive blooms of phytoplankton that could remove substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

www.whoi.edu

 

[multivita-man]

which, according to the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, is doing absolutely nothing...

You're full of shit.

 

[multivita-man]

Iron Fertilization - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Iron fertilization is a technique that would artificially add iron to the ocean’s surface, triggering massive blooms of phytoplankton that could remove substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

www.whoi.edu

Sounds cute.

Why has carbon and methane PPM increased nearly exponentially every year since the 1950s?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds cute.

Why has carbon and methane PPM increased nearly exponentially every year since the 1950s?

Because fossil fuels are really fucking awesome!

 

[multivita-man]

Because fossil fuels are really fucking awesome!

Until they fuck up the atmosphere. Then, not so much.

Take some fucken science classes fag-munch.