Global Warming?

[EE_Bota]

Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - The Washington Post

"James E. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.........

In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.

----------------------

I know....another one of these research scientists and their data:confused2:

Loren

I have a confession to make: I resent having our leaders be mislead by the "optimism" or "pessimism" of a hack posing as a scientist.

 

[Tollster]

Don't sweat it, just a normal year according to some!

 

[/pine]

I have a confession to make: I resent having our leaders be mislead by the "optimism" or "pessimism" of a hack posing as a scientist.

Those that are misguided rarely if ever recognize the fact...!

 

[Tollster]

Those that are misguided rarely if ever recognize the fact...!

However, those that do, more often than not become true leaders in the knowledge they seek.

 

[/pine]

However, those that do, more often than not become true leaders in the knowledge they seek.

leaders of what?:laughing: other misguided souls?.. it does not make one iota of a difference how far off the wall (incorrect) that "knowledge" may be...

Misguided "leaders" will always take advantage at every opportunity of the gullible...it's their only hope...!

 

[RobertBrown]

I have a confession to make: I resent having our leaders be mislead by the "optimism" or "pessimism" of a hack posing as a scientist.

A hack?
Really? Wow thanks for letting me know, because i found myself seriously considering his assertions.
Forget climate change and forget our role in it. This guy has credentials. How is it you you've come to decide he's a hack? Because you don't like what he said or because he changed is position or what? Are you more qualified then he to make these assessments?
What is your experience in studying the climate and atmosphere? Who should I believe?
According to Wikipedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[SUP][2][/SUP]

Thanks for the heads up :thumbsup:

 

[EE_Bota]

A hack?
Really? Wow thanks for letting me know, because i found myself seriously considering his assertions.
Forget climate change and forget our role in it. This guy has credentials.

Well then you have a confession to make too then don't you: you think science should be influenced by the scientists "optimism." What if the guy is on drugs? What if he has an agenda, which "optimism" and "pessimism" suggests. What if his wife has him sleeping in the dog house? What if he hates his boss but loves his mistress?

To me, having to admit he is wrong is an eye opener, but it happens, and I suppose there is some honor in the admission, but it should raise flags...like how certain did he maintain he was about his testimony at the time? But to get cutesy and say he was "too optimistic" implying that he was actually even MORE right than he stated just strains all credibility with me. You are free to think otherwise, but in a time where consensus it being touted as a part of science, I am starting to want to draw the line at "optimism" and/ or "pain due to hemorrhoids."

 

[mostly_gas]

James Hanson is with NASA is he not? And if I reccall correctly NASA has had problems with data such as Arctic ice amounts, and misstated which years are the hottest etc. I wonder if made the mistake of believing the NASA data?

 

[RobertBrown]

Well then you have a confession to make too then don't you: you think science should be influenced by the scientists "optimism." What if the guy is on drugs? What if he has an agenda, which "optimism" and "pessimism" suggests. What if his wife has him sleeping in the dog house? What if he hates his boss but loves his mistress?

To me, having to admit he is wrong is an eye opener, but it happens, and I suppose there is some honor in the admission, but it should raise flags...like how certain did he maintain he was about his testimony at the time? But to get cutesy and say he was "too optimistic" implying that he was actually even MORE right than he stated just strains all credibility with me. You are free to think otherwise, but in a time where consensus it being touted as a part of science, I am starting to want to draw the line at "optimism" and/ or "pain due to hemorrhoids."

Oh ok, I get it now.
Thanks for clearing that up:thumbsup:

 

[Egon]

So? How would that impact a thing I said?

Implied factors.:thumbsup:

 

[Loren49]

If they are accurate and I can't say one way or another without looking at reams of documents from multiple sources, but for the sake of argument let's say it is warming. I for one, never said it isn't warming this instant, but it certainly has before, more drastically and at higher rates, in eras where man could not be blamed. When they adequately answer the questions asked before, then they will believable, not before. The earth has continuously gone through warming/cooling cycles, so far nobody can explain why the earlier events were nature but the current events are not. Quoting more people's beliefs doesn't make it so.

Awards

In November 2004, Climatologists Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, received Scientific American magazine's Top 50 Scientist award.[1]



Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change research

A key objective of Goddard Institute for Space Studies research is prediction of climate change in the 21st century. The research combines paleogeological record, analysis of comprehensive global datasets (derived mainly from spacecraft observations), with global models of atmospheric, land surface, and oceanic processes.

Climate science predictions are based substantially on historical analysis of Earth's paleoclimate (climate through geological ages), and the sea-level/ temperature/ carbon dioxide record.

Changes in carbon dioxide associated with continental drift, and the decrease in volcanism as India arrived at the Asian continent, allowed temperatures to drop & Antarctic ice-sheets to form. This resulted in a 75m drop in sea level, allowing our present-day coastlines & habitats to form and stabilize.[2]

Global change studies at GISS are coordinated with research at other groups within the Earth Sciences Division, including the Laboratory for Atmospheres, Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, and Earth Observing System science office.

---------------
To say that Hanson's conclusion is merely an opinion is a real stretch of reality. It is not one man's opinion but the consensus of the Institute's Scientists from coordinated research involving other groups. Climate research is what they do.

Deny, deny, deny ....reaccuse and attack the messenger.

Loren

 

[toppop52]

Deny, deny, deny ....reaccuse and attack the messenger.

Yes, you do and it seems you can't stop!
That doesn't explain why the earlier, more drastic events occurred without the influence of my ac unit.

 

[crash325]

Yes, you do and it seems you can't stop!
That doesn't explain why the earlier, more drastic events occurred without the influence of my ac unit.

Gosh Darn Pop,
Didn't you see John Kerry on the senate floor a day or 2 ago. He said Global Warming was more serious than Iran with a A Bomb. Not only that but it would happen faster.

My Gosh, with that Real Expert saying that we should all be Believers. I may start just any day Now.

And the Warmies wounder why some of us aren't on the band wagon. :confused3:

 

[SPYDERLK]

+ 1 for ROB-D (eHYDRO)...... he's talking the talk and walking the walk.....also knows what he's talking about...I admire his tenacity in continuing reasoned participation in this thread without calling any one names or using pejorative language. I like his style and understanding in steadily countering the nattering naysayers posting. Good job:drink:

I think Rob has been shown to be a typical central control progressive liberal wanting to run every aspect of others lives. On top of that the man made global warm argument has been shown to be a hoax. Rob is just an old man dealing with what he thought was a slam dunk and internalizing the truth after a lifetime of being wrong.

HS

You are one very peculiar fellow, but you are undersood.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

Yes. I agree texasjohn; however Robs highly factual opinions and absolute facts are wasted on these guys. They will enduringly use dishonest argument to get around and "refute" what he says as well a namecalling to help them gang up to diminish his stature and views.

Dustier, THANK YOU for that link. Infinitely appropriate, but the further in the more threatening to those to which it applies most. It will be discredited if at all possible. In this discredit will be evidence of comprehension deficit ... among other things.
larry

 

[RobertBrown]

Well then you have a confession to make too then don't you: you think science should be influenced by the scientists "optimism." What if the guy is on drugs? What if he has an agenda, which "optimism" and "pessimism" suggests. What if his wife has him sleeping in the dog house? What if he hates his boss but loves his mistress?

To me, having to admit he is wrong is an eye opener, but it happens, and I suppose there is some honor in the admission, but it should raise flags...like how certain did he maintain he was about his testimony at the time? But to get cutesy and say he was "too optimistic" implying that he was actually even MORE right than he stated just strains all credibility with me. You are free to think otherwise, but in a time where consensus it being touted as a part of science, I am starting to want to draw the line at "optimism" and/ or "pain due to hemorrhoids."

I'm guessing that you would not believe that man has an effect on climate change no matter who suggested such a thing regardless of their qualifications or his/ her education.
Would I be correct?

 

[SPYDERLK]

Confusion is the enemy of action. If enough people can be kept confused there will be no beneficial action taken. So far I have not witnessed any unifying effect from this thread. On the contrary, it seems to have more strongly polarized those whose minds were mostly made up and confused the rest.

To deny that man has had a detrimental effect on the natural environment is abysmal ignorance. How much and to what end is the appropriate universe of discourse as well as what if anything should or could be done about it.

Until or unless the debate rises above political agendas, wishful thinking, and denial, little or no good will come from all the rhetoric.

Has anyone observed any beneficial outcome from the discussions here over the long life of this thread? If yes, then please point them out to the rest of us less observant ones.

If anyone has made a significant change in their beliefs/position on the issues due to this thread, please share that.

Pat

An aid to cultivating sardonic humor.:confused3:
larry

 

[SPYDERLK]

these Crazy Greenies

I've often wondered what Greenies were. Are they really green? How did they get that way?

Why aren't there also people called say "Purples". Or "Orangies". Or say "Violeties"? Seems if one colour is used there should be more use of other colours!:thumbsup:

Before TBN me and a lot of other folk though Boogers were greenies!:cool2:

From hugging young trees.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Deny, deny,deny...reaccuse

I read a few weeks ago that the recent edict sent down from Uncle George Soros listed that as the buzz phrase of the week for liberal talking points. You follow your instructions from the dear leader admirably, congratulations!:thumbsup:

Recrimination.

 

[SPYDERLK]

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Don't worry - be happy!

Arent even that many atoms maybe.
larry

 

[SPYDERLK]

Richard Muller, a known skeptic has changed his mind, say the headlines, and in truth he sort of did but here is overall statement and here is the overblown headline and article.
But even for those liberal greenies that will glom onto this report take note, he says that local events such as the drought and heat wave have nothing, repeat nothing to do with the "tiny" global warming.

If hes right about the one hes wrong about the other.