NASA Scientist: Last Chance (Global Warming)

#1
W

WA_Vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
18,663
Likes
12
#1
James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.
"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."
Click to expand...

NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance' - USATODAY.com
 
#10
#10
global warming is the biggest crock of S, i've ever heard of. Interesting that here in bama the past wk or 2 it's been ridiculously nice. usually it's so dang muggy you can't walk outside for 2 seconds without sweating.
 
#11
#11
Vol Mania 21 said:
global warming is the biggest crock of S, i've ever heard of. Interesting that here in bama the past wk or 2 it's been ridiculously nice. usually it's so dang muggy you can't walk outside for 2 seconds without sweating.
Click to expand...

You guys must not drive cars or trucks there.
 
#12
#12
Maybe we should get it back to 1930's levels since Hansen's own GISS has 4 of the hottest years on record in that decade, including the hottest year on record, 1934. The others, in descending order are '31, '38 & '39.
 
#13
#13
hndog609 said:
Maybe we should get it back to 1930's levels since Hansen's own GISS has 4 of the hottest years on record in that decade, including the hottest year on record, 1934. The others, in descending order are '31, '38 & '39.
Click to expand...

In another 20 years, someone will be spouting some other, "the sky is falling" theory that the masses will fear.
 
#15
#15
maybe we should go back to the 70's. that's when the science community predicted another ice age. yeah, they were right about that. such crap.
 
#16
#16
Or try this- in the last decade, the earth has COOLED OFF 2/10ths of a degree- not heated up. Data doesn't support this "science"
 
#18
#18
joevol320 said:
maybe we should go back to the 70's. that's when the science community predicted another ice age. yeah, they were right about that. such crap.
Click to expand...

Here's part of an abstract entitled Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. (note areas of emphasis)

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Who is this abstract credited to? According to the Washington Post ('71) it's the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Who does Hansen work for again?
 
#19
#19
Hansen is like the paid witness at a trial. "Just tell me what you want me to say".
 
#20
#20
One of the few times global cooling was ever mentioned seriously in the scientific literature was in this 1971 paper. At the time, other researchers were looking into global warming...so please don't act like the scientific community went from being all global cooling "freaks" to global warming "freaks". The paper was right in some aspects - aerosols do cause a lot of cooling. However, the sustained input of aerosols that was envisioned was fairly unrealistic ... and further research (by many authors) suggested that they underestimated the climate sensitivity to CO2 by about 3 times.

Also...Hansen wasn't involved in the work, right?
 
#21
#21
TennTradition said:
One of the few times global cooling was ever mentioned seriously in the scientific literature was in this 1971 paper. At the time, other researchers were looking into global warming...so please don't act like the scientific community went from being all global cooling "freaks" to global warming "freaks". The paper was right in some aspects - aerosols do cause a lot of cooling. However, the sustained input of aerosols that was envisioned was fairly unrealistic ... and further research (by many authors) suggested that they underestimated the climate sensitivity to CO2 by about 3 times.

Also...Hansen wasn't involved in the work, right?
Click to expand...

i guess when Time Magazine dedicated a month issue to the coming Ice age, they must have had no science input.
 
#22
#22
joevol320 said:
i guess when Time Magazine dedicated a month issue to the coming Ice age, they must have had no science input.
Click to expand...

Strikingly little. There was extremely little mention in the academic literature, some mention in the scientific magazines, and a fair amount of mention in the popular press (Time, Newsweek, etc.). I do not think that it should be a stretch for any of us to realize that issues that are discussed as conjecture and possibility (without a lot of scientific research/work going into it) can suddenly appear in the popular press as something close to inevitable. A good modern example would be wide-spread disease and 30 meter sea level rise from global warming. These issues are not believed (with high confidence) to be results of global warming, per se, (more the disease than the sea level rise, I guess)...but I swear I see it mentioned int he popular press all the time. I believe the term is "doom and gloom." Somehow the 5% confidence interval is treated as the 95% confidence interval when it the results seem a lot scarier.
 
#23
#23
TennTradition said:
One of the few times global cooling was ever mentioned seriously in the scientific literature was in this 1971 paper. At the time, other researchers were looking into global warming...so please don't act like the scientific community went from being all global cooling "freaks" to global warming "freaks". The paper was right in some aspects - aerosols do cause a lot of cooling. However, the sustained input of aerosols that was envisioned was fairly unrealistic ... and further research (by many authors) suggested that they underestimated the climate sensitivity to CO2 by about 3 times.

Also...Hansen wasn't involved in the work, right?
Click to expand...
while you make a valid point, holding up a scientist at NASA is hardly a smoking gun.
 
#25
#25
Yea I am sure all of you Gobal warming believers are goin to quit driving your cars and all that it takes to fix the problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top