Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 62344 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31846 Aug 7, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Pitiful.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

#31847 Aug 7, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
And in Hanson's latest you have to get rid of anything before the 1950s and the Southern Hemisphere.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31848 Aug 7, 2012
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>If he and the millions of loving parents of their dear sweet children in the global scientific community really meant and said this, we would see them marching in the streets with the dozens of climate change protesters, not sitting on their hands while their children are condemned to the greenhouse gas ovens. The exaggeration of CO2 is astounding. It clearly was not a crisis and the world has walked away from CO2 mitigation, belief and support of. Deny that.
What's the uncertainty regarding your location? You announce to the world "near Detroit."

Why don't you just say Detroit? Is it possibly Detroit? Why are you not sure? Are you ashamed of your location? Why are you hiding it while sitting on your hands?
SpaceBlues

United States

#31849 Aug 7, 2012
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
And in Hanson's latest you have to get rid of anything before the 1950s and the Southern Hemisphere.
LOL. Since when science asks your permission what to study or how to study!

If you don't like what science is doing, you do your own science, can't you???

Hansen explains why he does what he does. Read it.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

#31850 Aug 7, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Since when science asks your permission what to study or how to study!
If you don't like what science is doing, you do your own science, can't you???
Hansen explains why he does what he does. Read it.
Too funny....there are scientists doing their own studies, but you don't call them scientists, you call them denialists.

Hansen states:

"We choose 1951–1980 as the base period for most of our illustrations, for several reasons. First, it was a time of relatively stable global temperature prior to rapid global warming in recent decades. Second, it is recent enough for older people, especially the “baby boom” generation, to remember.
Third, global temperature in 1951–1980 was within the Holocene range,and thus it is a climate that the natural world and civilization are adapted to. In contrast, global temperature in at least the past two decades is probably outside the Holocene range (7), as evidenced by the fact that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are both losing mass rapidly and sea level has been rising at a rate3 m&#8725;millenn"

_______

So he picks a "stable" period, but then that means the climate was less "stable" prior to the 1950s as evidenced by the 1930s. How can you see any kind of pattern when one dismisses what was happening prior to 1950 and then claim this climate is the most extreme in 10,000 years. The Antarctic ice sheet is above the 1979-2000 average. Sea rise is not accelerating at an alarming rate and the Greenland ice sheet has gone through melts in the past just as today and the temperatures have been stable the last 15 years.

There is nothing scientific about Hansen's paper as scientists don't usually start out their papers stating that a recent survey in the United States confirms that public opinion about the existence and importance of global warming depends strongly on their perceptions of recent local climate variations. Hansen, the scientist, is worried about public perception and has found out that their perceptions depend strongly on recent climate variations. So the entire paper is about influencing the public perception. He gives up all scientific credibility when he does that.

Here is how his paper begins:

"The greatest barrier to public recognition of human-made climate change is probably the natural variability of local climate. How can a person discern long-term climate change, given the notorious variability of local weather and climate from day to day and year to year? This question assumes great practical importance because of the need for the public to appreciate the significance of human made global warming. Actions to stem emissions of the gases that cause global warming are unlikely to approach what is needed until the public recognizes that human-made climate change is underway and perceives that it will have unacceptable consequences if effective actions are not taken to slow the climate change. A recent survey in the United States (1) confirms that public opinion about the existence and importance of global warming depends strongly on their perceptions of recent local climate variations. Early public recognition of climate change is critical. Stabilizing climate with conditions resembling those of the Holocene, the world in which civilization developed, can only be achieved if rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions begins soon.

Northie

Spokane, WA

#31851 Aug 7, 2012
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny....there are scientists doing their own studies, but you don't call them scientists, you call them denialists.
Too funny...nearly all of your handful of "scientists" work for oil companies or oil company front groups. The few that don't are nearly all conservative political and/or religious fanatics, just like you.

NO national scientific academies dispute our responsibility for climate change. NO relevant scientific societies do.

And, by the way, the heat waves studied by Hanson, Sato and Ruedy are mostly beyond the United States.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#31852 Aug 7, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>It's a shame you won't be around to witness it.
Oh I'll be around at least another 100 years. If you look at the advances in the last 100 years and then imagine what it will be like in another 100 years it is staggering.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#31853 Aug 7, 2012
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is how his paper begins:
"The greatest barrier to public recognition of human-made climate change is probably the natural variability of local climate. How can a person discern long-term climate change, given the notorious variability of local weather and climate from day to day and year to year? This question assumes great practical importance because of the need for the public to appreciate the significance of human made global warming. Actions to stem emissions of the gases that cause global warming are unlikely to approach what is needed until the public recognizes that human-made climate change is underway and perceives that it will have unacceptable consequences if effective actions are not taken to slow the climate change. A recent survey in the United States (1) confirms that public opinion about the existence and importance of global warming depends strongly on their perceptions of recent local climate variations. Early public recognition of climate change is critical. Stabilizing climate with conditions resembling those of the Holocene, the world in which civilization developed, can only be achieved if rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions begins soon.
You make a valid point, I think.

A paper stating its main line of inquiry as quoted above would be more suited for publication in the American Journal of Political Science or the American Journal of Sociology than in any of the journals dealing with the Natural Sciences.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#31854 Aug 7, 2012
Germany to build 23 coal-fired electric generation plants to replace the nuclear plants shut down because of fears after Japan's earthquake.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31855 Aug 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a valid point, I think.
A paper stating its main line of inquiry as quoted above would be more suited for publication in the American Journal of Political Science or the American Journal of Sociology than in any of the journals dealing with the Natural Sciences.
But you don't.

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 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.

My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/j...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#31856 Aug 7, 2012
My grandfather was born in 1880's. My father was born in 1921. I was born in 1958. My youngest daughter was born in 2002. Barring illness or accident she will live to the year 2127. Why am I saying this. Think of the advances in these 4 generations.
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#31857 Aug 7, 2012
flack wrote:
Germany to build 23 coal-fired electric generation plants to replace the nuclear plants shut down because of fears after Japan's earthquake.
Completely foolish policy choice.
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

#31858 Aug 7, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>But you don't.
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 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.
My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/j...
Hansen states this about his paper:

"Such events used to be exceedingly rare. Extremely hot temperatures covered about 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the globe in the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. In the last three decades, while the average temperature has slowly risen, the extremes have soared and now cover about 10&#8201;percent of the globe."

So how can Hansen come to the conclusion that extreme weather was rare (0.1% to 0.2%) prior to 1950 if he doesn't even do an analysis of the years prior to 1950 and then go on to claim that we are experiencing the most extreme weather in 10,000 years based on just looking at 2 decades?
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

#31859 Aug 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a valid point, I think.
A paper stating its main line of inquiry as quoted above would be more suited for publication in the American Journal of Political Science or the American Journal of Sociology than in any of the journals dealing with the Natural Sciences.
Hansen has foregone science and is just an ideologue. Hansen called climate change an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery.
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#31860 Aug 7, 2012
flack wrote:
My grandfather was born in 1880's. My father was born in 1921. I was born in 1958. My youngest daughter was born in 2002. Barring illness or accident she will live to the year 2127. Why am I saying this. Think of the advances in these 4 generations.
Your expectation of a 125-year lifespan for your daughter seems unfounded.

Table 4 in this Report, for instance ... http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf

... would suggest your daughter would be expected to live until about the year 2090. I certainly wish your daughter a long and happy life - but for her to see an additional 35 years of life beyond her late 70s would seem very unlikely.

On what do you base your rather optimistic projection of a 125-year lifespan?
SpaceBlues

United States

#31861 Aug 7, 2012
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hansen has foregone science and is just an ideologue. Hansen called climate change an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery.
LOL. Prof Dr Hansen is beyond science now. He's become a sage of the modern era on top of his science contributions.(He's, I think, 71 yo.)

Professor Dr. Hansen is inspired to help us unlike your ilk.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#31862 Aug 7, 2012
Reddy Kilowatt wrote:
<quoted text>
Your expectation of a 125-year lifespan for your daughter seems unfounded.
Table 4 in this Report, for instance ... http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf
... would suggest your daughter would be expected to live until about the year 2090. I certainly wish your daughter a long and happy life - but for her to see an additional 35 years of life beyond her late 70s would seem very unlikely.
On what do you base your rather optimistic projection of a 125-year lifespan?
A study I read somewhere that gave an average life expectancy of 125 years for someone born in her year. It was based on the fact that medical technology will progress at an increasingly rapid pace. A couple of examples: Doctors are now using a patients DNA to grow body parts with zero rejection. Hearts, lungs, ears, and many other things. It will soon be possible to grow every part of a body. They are almost ready to start trials on nanobots that are injected into the body. These nanobots will hunt for and destroy/repair all diseases. Colds will be a thing of the past. There are some scientists who are now wondering how long can a human actually live. Some say barring sudden death we could live forever.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31863 Aug 7, 2012
Hansen accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from a foundation run by the wife of a presidential candidate. Hansen then endorsed the candidate even though as a federal employee, he couldn't use his official position for political campaigns.

Hansen is a corrupt fraud.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#31864 Aug 7, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>But you don't.
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 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.
My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/j...
My point clearly escaped you - either because I was insufficiently clear in its presentation, or because it is a point to which you prefer to remain intentionally obtuse. Giving you the benefit of the doubt on this, allow me to try and state it more clearly:

Past and projected future global average temp and the solar/oceanic/atmosperic physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics that drive them are no doubt the proper province of the scientific literature in the natural sciences. Likewise your own scientific inquiries and Senate testimony on the subject as you've described it.

However, a paper such as Hanson's cited that has as its principle stated line of inquiry an investigation into the popular public reaction to scientific analyses and projections of global average temperatures, popular response and political reaction to the projected risks and consequences, and analysis and advocacy for alternative public policy responses to projections of global average temperatures and scientific analyses of temperature drivers would not seem to fall within the proper province of the scientific literature in the natural sciences. Instead, such a paper would appear to be more appropriate for publication in one of the journals in the social sciences, e.g., political science, public policy and administration, and/or sociology.

In short, scientific inquiry into why governments, societies, politicians, capitalists, and the general public at large choose not to follow the earnest policy and behavioral prescriptions and advice of academics in the fields of the natural sciences in all respects is a question for social scientists (economists, sociologists, political scientists, and public policy analysts). Climate scientists are generally unqualified to address this question competently, and this question is inapt for the scientific literature in the natural sciences.

I make no judgement on the paper's value, validity, or objectivity - merely an observation of its basic nature and its stated objective of scientific inquiry.

I regret the point I was seeking to make in my original post was unclear.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#31865 Aug 7, 2012
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hansen has foregone science and is just an ideologue. Hansen called climate change an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery.
Sure. He's entitled to his views and his advocacy of then, as far as I'm concerned. I might even agree with him to an extent.

Just don't call it climate science - it's not. Just as Noam Chomsky's political views and advocacy weren't and aren't matters of linguistic science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Dr Guru 231,183
News Colleges pushed to note sexual misconduct on tr... 1 hr Moans3712 2
News Democratic states wary as Trump embarks on vict... 1 hr Cheekz3494 15
News OK, so, pota s legal. Now what? 1 hr green leaf 19
News If feds try to ID deportable immigrants using C... 3 hr Lawrence Wolf 9
News California's new legislative session begins wit... 4 hr DR X 18
Barry aka Garry Cramer and Janice Wohlert Wed Mike Johnson 1
More from around the web