Climatologist James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies warns that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels above 350 parts per million—lower than current readings—may trigger
catastrophic rises in sea level.
Image: FRED CONRAD New York Times/Redux Pictures (Hansen)
The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth. Period.
But the earth is not a billiard ball. It is an extraordinarily complex, messy geophysical system with dozens of variables, most of which change in response to one another. Oceans absorb vast amounts of heat, slowing the warm-up of the atmosphere, yet they also absorb excess CO2. Vegetation soaks up CO2 as well but eventually rereleases the gas as plants rot or burn—or, in a much longer-term scenario—drift to the bottom of the ocean to form sedimentary rock such as limestone. Warmer temperatures drive more evaporation from the oceans; the water vapor itself is a heat-trapping gas, whereas the clouds it forms block some of the sun’s warming rays. Volcanoes belch CO2, but they also spew particulates that diffuse the sun’s rays. And that’s just a partial list.
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentExcellent article - spot on... only a minor correction important enough to mention:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say "today’s level of atmospheric CO2, which stands at 385 ppm"
It most certainly does not stand, it moves and trends, maybe, but not stands. It is constantly in motion, next year it will be higher.. but you can check http://co2now.org/
It would be most helpful to have a model that includes other phenomena such as the Earth's orbital "wobble" that effects climate, the Sun's radiance which effects climate, and so on. What a complicated equation, but one we need if we're to improve prediction accuracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Rest of the Biochar Story:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharles Mann ("1491")in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
I think Biochar has climbed the pinnacle, the Combined English and other language circulation of NGM is nearly nine million monthly with more than fifty million readers monthly!
We need to encourage more coverage now, to ride Mann's coattails to public critical mass.
Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague's ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
I love the "MEGO" factor theme Mann built the story around. Lord... how I KNOW that reaction.
I like his characterization concerning the pot shards found in Terra Preta soils;
so filled with pottery - "It was as if the river's first inhabitants had
thrown a huge, rowdy frat party, smashing every plate in sight, then
buried the evidence."
A couple of researchers I was not aware of were quoted, and I'll be sending them posts about our Biochar group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/b...guid=122501696
and data base;
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
I also have been trying to convince Michael Pollan ( NYT Food Columnist, Author ) to do a follow up story, with pleading emails to him
Since the NGM cover reads "WHERE FOOD BEGINS" , I thought this would be right down his alley and focus more attention on Mann's work.
I've admiried his ability since "Botany of Desire" to over come the "MEGO" factor (My Eyes Glaze Over) and make food & agriculture into page turners.
It's what Mann hasn't covered that I thought should interest any writer as a follow up article.
The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar in the 07 farm bill,
Dr, James Hansen's Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference last month, and coming article in Science,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate soils
Glomalin's role in soil tilth & Terra Preta,
The International Biochar Initiative Conference Sept 8 in New Castle;
http://www.biochar-international.org/ibi2008conference/aboutibi2008conference.html
Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages& SIMULTANEOUSLY!
This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Erich
540 289 9750
The world is doing a poor job at stopping or even reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Worse, we have given free passes to China and India allowing them to accelerate their GHG emissions at a rate that makes our feeble efforts to go green "a pious dream" as one Nobel-Prize winning scientist has said. Many climatologists, atmospheric scientists and astronomers have come to the conclusion that we have already "passed the tipping point." No matter what we do, we cannot significantly reduce the concentrations of GHG we have already released to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. Even if we could stop all further emissions of GHG (and that's not going to happen), it would take many hundreds or even thousands of years to achieve significant reductions of the GHG already in our atmosphere. Geoengineered solar-shade/solar-shield technologies must be researched, developed, tested and deployed to buy us the time to go green at a rate we can actually achieve. Meanwhile these geoengineered technologies have the potential of stopping and even reversing global warming and adverse climate change in a very short period of time (some scientists say in less than a year) after they are deployed. these technologies work by blocking, diffusing or reflecting back approximately two percent of the sun's light/heat energy before it penetrates our atmosphere. This will give us the time to go green gradually. I firmly believe that we must start our research on these technologies immediately, because we are going to need them to prevent terrible disasters to our world and our civilization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ain't never heard of them thar "geoengineered solar-shade/solar-shield technologies..." mentioned by "Show Me." What - is it like a big parasol in the sky or some sort a large reflecting mirror here on terra firma? Tell me more and where can ya read more about this stuff?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseuphorbia7
It's difficult to even list, let alone consider, the number of solutions to the possible impacts of CO2 in our atmosphere, and from one point of view, the biggest impact seems to be an increase in plant productivity (CO2 is, afterall, a plant's primary nutrient)...but even if it is accelerating the normal shifting in climates that has always been going on, and we need to address that instead of strengthening the infrastructures of our population centers, even then there are so many solutions to CO2 build-up: biochar, sequestration, algae for fuels, linear fresnel lense thermal solar energy, wind, tidal...the list just keeps going on and becomes more and more "do-able" the higher that fuel prices go! We are living in terrific times, now if guys like Hansen would just step aside and take his legion of worry warts and static-climate believers off to the sidelines where they can debate the number of CO2 molecules that can dance on the head of a pin(head), we'd be on our way to making rational decisions that recognize the complexity of our robust and yet vulnerable world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, Ericj, for that tip on the Nat Geo article by Charles C Mann. Very good and underscores the likelihood that when it comes to large complex natural system, our models are inadequate in describing them, or surely the idea of the Amazon as a pristine wilderness would never have been implanted in ourminds but instead we'd know it as a vast land under light impact cultivation that it's being proven to have been, and maybe, if we do things right, might be again. If you haven't read Mann's book "1491: new understandings on North America's natural history before Columbus" you owe it to yourself to give it some attention. It is a work that breaks apart many concepts regarding wilderness, cultural anthropology and civilization's impact on it as it applied to the real history of North America's contact with european impacts following Columbus' landing. In a nutshell, the science of archaeology and natural/cultural anthropology of the America's has progressed a lot since we were in school learning the national mythology disguised as history. What the truth, as it's being revealed, shows us is a startling picture that explains the way it was in a very coherent, comprehensive, accurate and satisfying story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many warning signs do we have to get to start moving seriously away from fossil fuels? It looks as we are a primitive group of people to whom a hearsay gossips that a damn upstream is leaking and about to rupture. Pseudo serious men and authorities gossip that there is no proof, that the rise of the river is something natural and so on. People are being anesthetized and do not react. What other proofs do we need? Tsunamis? death?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that the rise of oil prices would ignite a massive research into renewable energies. This did not occur. The existing cost of fuel brings the feasibility of alternative fuels to a realistic possibility. Why then not tax fossil fuels to the point where alternative fuels become viable? If the world could survive with soaring oil prices, it will certainly survive (literally also) on clean alternatives.
Wow. That folks are still listening to Hansen - let alone viewing him as a valid voice in the field - is amazing. It's sad to. The guy has a long history of making hysteria filled "scientific conclusions" about the "absolute proof" of our causing massive climate change. Back in the 70's Hansen was one of the "scientists" leading the charge in declaring we were due for a New Ice Age! Yup, that's right, an Ice Age. This Global Freezing, according to Hansen's own figures, would be taking place NOW and would involve glaciers racing down from the north and have ice bergs floating around New York harbor. Oops. Looks like the lad screwed up reading his thermometer back then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis Hansen is the same guy who put out an analysis that 1998 was the warmest year of the last century. Oops. Looks like the lad screwed up his math. When this was pointed out, NASA eventually took Hansen's numbers down - quietly - and put up the correct ones. Then Hansen rejiggered his means of calculation in order to get his beloved 1998 back up there as number one.
"Dr. Hansen" is also the same guy who's received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fund set up by George Soros to influence public policy toward his own (Soros') ends.
This guy is a bought 'n paid for mouthpiece of the global warming scam and he should be called out for it - not lauded.
But, Scientific American is also "in the tank" on this scam and has invested much of what used to be its Sterling reputation in the issue. It has used its editorial pages and its articles to attack anyone who dares even slightly criticize the dogma issued by the Religion of Global Warming.
Luckily, the real world is proving the lies inherent in the AGW scam. Satellite data has shown no global warming since 1998 - and that's flat out impossible according to AGW climate models. The southern hemisphere has been experiencing record cold winters _and_ cold summers. Plus, the latest Solar Cycle is both delayed in its start and now promises to be a much colder one. There's even talk now that we're due to another Solar Minimum - like the Dalton or Maunder ones before.
Still though, it's going to be a while before the global warming scammers get fully called out. And articles such as this gushing adulation filled hack piece are just delaying the inevitable.
Madoc
That is jsut totally awesome dude. Well done indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.privacy.es.tc
Madoc, what are you referring to? He a was a research assistant on this paper:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
regarding aerosol pollution. This is hardly a forecast of a new ice age. You guys seem to come out of the woodwork, not to dispute the science, but to rant about your fears of the solution to climate change.
Why does nobody consider population control as an effective tool to reduce CO2 emissions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no doubt that we shall see famine and its consequences this century.
Go ahead economists bring on the sixth extinction.
Lefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Madoc, what are you referring to?"
Um, the article cited here in which Hansen mentioned in just about every other line as being some "preeminent" expert in the field of climatology. In actuality, the guy's track record stinks, he's appallingly bad at handling large data sets - which turns out to be an essential skill if you're gonna use that data for anything other than paperweights - and he's been on the take from a pretty unsavory political activist billionaire.
Other than, hey, the guy is just jim dandy to have on board, eh?
I point out the guy's track record as that's a pretty good gauge of whether he's worth listening to now. And yes, that is disputing his science.
All this talk of "tipping points" is based on the assumption that there's points to tip. Had that ever been the case then they would've tipped long, long, long ago. This recent talk about CO2's alleged effect on the climate is just bullshit and scare tactics. Which is about all the AGW scammers have to begin with.
And your choice of words is also interesting. Now it's "climate change" and no longer "global warming" - let alone "Anthropogenic Global Warming." It seems even the scammers have realized they can't keep milking the "we're all gonna fry" deal any more since things are cooling down. So, instead, they've turned to declaring that climate _change_ is somehow our fault to. This, when the Earth's climate is _ALWAYS_ changing.
What a sweet racket that is! Declare our fault something that is always changing, has always changed and always will change - and then milk the bejezus out of it for government funding trying to find ways of "stopping" the change!
Someday, this sort of snake oil selling will catch up to the scammers. The problem in the meantime is just how much they're gonna fleece the rest of us for in the meantime.
Madoc
Dr. Barry Marshal and Dr. Robin Warren were ridiculed when they claimed Helicobacter pylori caused ulcers in the digestive tract. If you read the feedback from doctors, some going to the extent that these researchers were quacks and should not call themselves doctor. Suggestions are now made that the pharmaceutical companies who stood to loose millions promoted the ideas that these doctors were wrong. Now all it takes to cure ulcers are antibiotics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe doctors got the Nobel prise for their work.
Think before you rubbish someone else's ideas.
This is dodgy science at best, they adjust the variables in their model to produce the outcome they wan't then claim it as evidence that their predictions are correct and ask for moremoney to do more research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate variation is an on going process, temperatures go up and down rainfall goes up and down oceans go up and down. The changes we have seen over the last century are not outside the normal variations in magnitude or rate of change that can be measured over millenia.
If C02 is trapping the infra red radiation emmited from earth then to heating should be in the atmosphere, however satellite and weather ballon data shows that this is not the case. The heating we have seen is on the ground which would suggest that the amount of incoming energy has increased, and that comes from the sun not from human activity.
Climate variation may prove to be long term climate change, if it is all we can do is learn to live with it because there is nothing we can do about it.
Helsinki and Singapore are both very prosperous cities with very high liveability, one with an average temperature of 5C and the other 30C, yet the doom sayers would have us believe we cannot adapt to a few degrees change when we have a hundred years to plan for it.
Madoc, you say the guy's track record stinks but have nothing to back up your statements. Just prove it. Give me URL's from something other than kook Internet sites. Prove he said a "new ice age is coming." I bet you just made that up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf all this stuff leads to the extinction of crickets I'm all for it. I can't stand those noisy little cockroach wannabees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're kidding me, right? Is this a humor piece? Well, I'm a reasonable person and I dispute it. I seriously question, however, that the author of this piece can be considered reasonable. The passion and anger of the climate change crowd reminds me uncomfortably of the Islamic fanatics who kill people that challenge Islam in any way. No valid climate theory can disregard solar output variances, yet climate change adherents do just that.
thanks Madoc. you are right on target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthanks Madoc. i too am not swayed by the 'Global Warming Religion'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, let's see now... As to Hansen's "we're all gonna freeze" bit there's these two cites:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/
And yes, those are referring back to the paper you listed. That forecast did conclude with the analysis of global cooling as a result. Now, a few years later, Hansen has come up with new computer models which "prove!" we're gonna fry due to global _warming_ not cooling. Typical.
Then there's his "Y2K" error which "caused" his initial claims that 1998 was the warmest year of the century:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/6/2/46BBF5C701BDB62A/
And now, in order to keep 1998 the warmest year - and thus substantiate his over all claim that things have really hotted up - Hansen changed his methodology in order to _force_ 1998 back into the number one slot.
Yeah, that's really sound science there. Obviously, the guy has NO agenda for twisting things like that. Obviously...
Hansen is also a bought and paid for shill of the AGW scam - with George Soros pouring money into his antics:
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2007/09/26/the-soros-threat-to-democracy/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1902403/posts
And yet, despite all this proof and despite his long track record of being wrong and of being more politician than anything remotely related to being a scientist, the guy still gets held up as an exemplar for the AGW scam.
Madoc
SE,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why does nobody consider population control as an effective tool to reduce CO2 emissions?
I have no doubt that we shall see famine and its consequences this century.
Go ahead economists bring on the sixth extinction."
Are you being serious here or just joking around?
Are you actually calling for eliminating human life as a means of reducing CO2 emissions?
Madoc
No, Hansen was not predicting global cooling. He wrote a bit of computer code that was used by another researcher that predicted cooling based on particulate aerosols being released into the air. All other things being equal, that is exactly what would happen. But guess what---all other things aren't equal. Our CO2 emissions increased and our particulate emissions decreased. Guess what that means...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy biggest bone to pick with AGW is the blind acceptance of proxy temperature data as being accurate to within a few tenths of a degree, many hundreds or even thousands of years in the past. Call me a heretic, naysayer, non-believer, denier, etc. but it is incredulous to me that pollen spores, leaf material etc are that temperature sensitive. If they were, plants would have never survived.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd has any one looked at dust/gas adsorption and desorption effects in ice cores? Gases like methane and CO2 do all types of strange things in the presence of clay particles and pressure (as in lithostatic ice pressure). Basically, the lower the pressure, the more these gases come out of desorptive states with dust and clay particles. Given this issue, one might expect higher free methane and CO2 gases in shallower ice core samples.
clearly interesting times we live in (as in the Chinese curse I mean).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the nay sayers, how can you explain that if we aren't messing around with the weather, and it is all attributable to good old sun, why is it getting warmer and colder, weather becomes more extreme, and we are getting a sun's minimum activity?
On the other hand, I might learn scuba diving, just to see the "ancient" cities in a decade or two!
Madoc, Your URL's DO NOT show Hansen making any such claim. Sorry but but little game is over, along with you phony posts under other names. Whoever is paying you should get a refund.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrairieDweller, you made my day. Hilarious!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Hansen, not so funny. He has remarkable faith in his computer programs but real world me asurements don't support his claims.
what about the climate will be in 2020?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree fully with madoc. Hansen has plenty of practise in being wrong: in 1971 he predicted an ice age within 50 years. This kind of article based on politics rather than science makes it very difficult to take SciAm seriously and is the reason I stopped buying the magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHansen wrote the program which "proved" we were headed for a new Ice Age by century's end. I'd say that's a pretty strong indication of his beliefs even back then.
And as to others joining this fray who are also poking great big holes in the AGW scam, no, those aren't me logging in under different aliases. I know that's a standard tactic I've seen used far to often by ROGW True Believers to shout down any critics. As hard as it might be for you to believe, there are actually plenty of folks out there - folks who are not on Big Oil payrolls - that see the AGW lie for what it is.
I also take it then that you've acknowledged Hansen's duplicity in his 1998 shell game and his being on the take from the Soros fund, right?
Madoc
Madoc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments are a calculated distortion of the record. Hansen wrote software for someone else's paper about cooling from aerosol pollution. I just asked you to show where Hansen himself predicted "a new ice age." Despite all your bombast, you have failed to do so. I'm OK with your being against world government, the "New World Order", black helicopters or whatever, but that's a different thing than the science and you are being intellectually dishonest.
Lefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice try there lad. Good attempt at a strawman to. "New World Order?" "Black helicopters?" Where are you getting this stuff?
I've pointed out Hansen's long involvement with climate hysteria. I've pointed out his willful manipulation of scientific findings for political ends, and I've pointed out his being on the payroll of a billionaire political activist as well.
You, in turn, have now started spouting about "intellectual dishonesty" and then dived into your "New World Order" stuff.
Sorry Lefty, your guy Hansen is a stooge - at best - or at willful hack for the ROGW faith. You've provided nothing to refute that.
Hansen _was_ involved in the "Global Freezing!" hysteria of the 70's. Hansen _is_ involved in the "Global Warming!" hysteria now and he's eyeball deep in the slime of that movement.
Instead of spouting your feigned righteous indignation, how about answering specifics? You know, like what was behind Hansen's manipulation of the climate date to keep 1998 as the "hottest year of the century" stuff. Or what about all that money Hansen took from Soros?
No answer there Lefty? What, not intellectually honest to feign one?
Madoc
Madoc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou STILL haven't backed up your original statement. Just quote one paper, WRITTEN BY HANSEN, not others, one speech, one news article, ANYTHING where Hansen himself makes assertions about a coming ice age, and give the URL to the quote.
Lefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid Hansen write that program? Yes.
Was the program used to promote the "Global Freezing" hysteria? Yes.
Is there any record that Hansen at all objected to this? No.
Did Hansen manipulate his data so as to keep 1998 as "the warmest year of the century?" Yes.
Did Hansen take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Soros? Yes.
Now, Lefty, you may disagree with my conclusion about Hansen and the global freezing scam - but you've provided nothing to refute any of the facts I've presented.
Hansen has a long and proven history of injecting his personal agenda, his personal politics, and his desire for the spotlight, into the "science" that he conducts. In the past this has taken the form of pushing global freezing. Presently, he's pushing global warming. The difference is that now Hansen's got a billionaire lining his pockets to keep spouting his part of the scam.
Have you anything, anything at all to refute that Lefty? No?
Madoc
You have failed to produce anything to back up your claims that Hansen himself made any statements predicting a coming ice age. Apparently, you aren't man enough to admit it when you're wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Apparently, you aren't man enough to admit it when you're wrong."
Wow. I see you can't make your points without first turning to personal insult. How typical.
Okay, Lefty, how about you try and deal with this issue on a _rational_ basis and perhaps even - if you can manage it - on at least a _civil_ basis.
Hansen has been involved in climate hysteria for decades now. You are right though, he was not the author of the "Global Freezing!" paper back in the 70's. He simply provided the software model used to "prove it."
I notice you've made no comment about Hansen's other antics. His "1998 shell game," his being in the pocket of George Soros, nor about his other media antics.
Your silence on those points it quite telling Lefty.
Madoc
My point is you claimed he was "leading the charge in declaring we were due for a New Ice Age!" And, in fact, you now admit your basis for this claim was that he wrote some software for someone else's paper. No doubt your other claims are just as goofy and ill-founded as that. So yes, I am insulting you. You are an idiot. Clear enough?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No doubt your other claims are just as goofy and ill-founded as that. So yes, I am insulting you. You are an idiot. Clear enough?"
Typical. Can't handle facts. Can't handle anyone not of the same mindless mindset as you. Just can't handle reality, period.
Instead, when faced with it you just sputter insult.
Hansen is a bought and paid for shill. He's lied in the past, he's deliberately falsified data in order to bolster his "global warming" claims and he's also deep, deep in the pockets of George Soros.
The global warming scammers like to whine about the oil companies spending money to counter the scammer's lies. Yet, when faced with proof of someone like Soros spending vastly more money to _directly_ lie to the public about global warming, well, all the scammers - like you Lefty - can do is start spewing insult and getting shrill.
It would figure that even here in this discussion that the first party to attempt rendering personal insult is a global warming "true believer." You're not interested in the facts Lefty, just in reinforcing your own dogma. Bow down and pray at the Church of Global Warming, Lefty. Anyone who can actually think for themselves must, therefore, be a heretic to the faith.
Oh, so typical.
Lefty, tell you what, according to the Reverend Al Gore, there's polar bears drowning up north. How about you go do your duty as a ROGW True Believer and rush right up there to see if you can't save a few of them bears from their watery death?
Madoc
Madoc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you going to retract your statement that Hansen was "leading the charge in declaring we were due for a New Ice Age!" Or are you going to back it up? Maybe you're right. Just prove it! Again, quote one paper, WRITTEN BY HANSEN, not others, one speech, one news article, ANYTHING where Hansen himself makes assertions about a coming ice age, and give the URL to the quote.
Once you do that, then we'll move on to the other things you are so eager to talk about. It looks like you're just trying to change the subject.
Lefty,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know it can be tough for such a closed minded ideologue such as yourself to actually _comprehend_ what you read when it so challenges your faith. But perhaps you might wish to try doing so - even just this once - as you might find it eye opening.
Ere you did so, then perhaps you might trip upon this passage: "You are right though, he was not the author of the "Global Freezing!" paper back in the 70's."
Now that we've established that at least one of us can admit our error when we make it, how about you prove your level of civility by retracting your attempts at insult and then addressing the other points which I raised.
Go ahead Lefty, demonstrate what a truly open minded, rational, and civil individual you are.
Madoc
Hello Madoc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Global Freezing!" hysteria of the 70's" is a myth. Just this year a peer reviewed article in the American Meteorological Society decimates this myth. In "The Myth of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus", the authors not only demonstrate that there was no consensus on the reality of a imminent ice age, but that a majority of the peer reviewed papers on climate change predicted warming. Their survey of the literature reveals that:
. * 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral
Their analysis goes deeper than this; e.g they look at the number of citations each paper has received. The article can be downloaded as a PDF article here: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
If you want to talk to one of the authors of the article then go over to Stoat's blog and have a chat. I guarantee you he will correspond with you.
Stoats is at the following address: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/now_out_in_bams_the_myth_of_th.php
Great comments Madoc! I used to blindly believe the Global Warming hype until I started to think and research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe heating caused by Carbon Dioxide is almost at a saturation point.
Consider jungle vs desert at night. They both have the same amount of CO2 in the air but the jungle stays much warmer because of the large amount of water vapor that is 100 times more effective greenhouse gas and far more abundant in the atmosphere.
Also in the 1930's the Artic was warmer than today. Why is there any ice there and why did the Earth cool after the 30's to reach the totally cool 70's? The Earth has definately warmed since the 70's but not since the 30's
Why is Scientific American selling out science to the hype?
Such as in the November 2008 edition page 46 "Second, ice is melting faster than ever at the poles," What kind of scientific statement is "faster than ever?" Garbage science, pure emotional manipulation to trigger some sore of fear response. Science might show a chart of melting ice but that would be hard now as it is a cool year and the ice is currently growing.
Why are you doing this to your fine magazine Scientific American? Are all the editors getting ready to invest in carbon credit market?
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was no "hysteria" in the 70's because Political Correctness and the dumbing-down of public education had not yet gripped to the degree it has today. People still had a sense of proportion with a grasp of history and a proper disdane of the effect of the comments and views by 'famous' personalities and sensational media on reality. So, there was no money-making enterprise possible based on Global Cooling, thus none of the cascade of glom-ons and fame and money-seekers we see today with the 'warming' claims.
Given the same cultural circumstances we endure today, I believe "Global Cooling" could have been a good investment in the 70's. Many rich men would have resulted...
Madocwise. This kind of rhetoric can only convince a housewifish least common denominator US citizen. Spare the effort with the literate public. Vested interest indeed that pivots your argument. Off the ceiling figures and verbal bickering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis guy Hanson is a scumbag who was paid to lie when he designed his computer model by George Soros to help Al Gore sell the GW hoax. I believe the # was $700,000.00. Don't believe anything he says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAl Gore and NASA climate scientist James Hansen and others , or the scientists and their views here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich of these scientists are we to believe? I don't know which side is correct, but the impact of humans on climate change seems to be more about fear, politics, and government grants than scientific evidence. Joe Biden said during the campaign that he is certain that "Global warming is caused by humans". No one agrees with that. Global warming and cooling is a natural process, caused by many factors, most uncontrollable. The only thing arguable is to what extent humans impact the rate at which the process is occurring, whether it is a significant impact, and whether any programs we put in place to counter any impact would be effective and money well spent.