Jim Hansen - 20 Years of Climate Concerns

[westcoast1965]

This guy is clearly a loon... and so is anybody who still believes his alarmist bullshit

[ThingsBetweenTimes]

Autism is mercury-poisoning [hydrargyrism n. poisoning with mercury; mercurialism], as prescribed by our pharmaceutical cartels as eugenics is population decimation as granted in granite on the Georgia Guide Stones.

[NikFromNYC]

Hansen's prophecy: oi52.tinypic.

com/30bfktk.jpg

[KingDingaLing090]

-0.12C since 2002 son. Not only is there no global warming there is actually COOOLING. Muaaahahaha!!!

So little words but so meaningful. 1) Global warming is not happening 2) Everyone who says it is lying or ignorant. 3) It takes 2 seconds to prove it all. 4) That is all you need for any debate at any time for any reason on any situation about global warming. -0.12C per decade since 2002! Phil Jones. I said PHIL FUCKING JONES BITCH!!!! AH AH AH aha aha...cooling. OH YES!!! I SAID COOLING!!

[chaparritajen]

@KingDingaLing090 wow!! how could you say the global warming is not real when there are a shit load of fucking INDEPENDENT scientific evidence that shows its real and that humans are responsible. the key word is independent studys not oil company paid scientist who only say what they are paid to say

maybe if we all just stop and consider where the information that we are getting comes from then we could make an educated response

[KingDingaLing090]

@chaparritajen Hahah "INDEPENDENT" he says!!! LOL

Wow when you look down on the brainwashed mass drones it can really be inspiring. I want to brainwash you one day... I am thinking of something good. Something... funny (er).

What evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE? lol

[KingDingaLing090]

This lunatic is showing his little toy because that is what Nasa is now. A little meaningless and laughable toy. His work amounts to a little toy in a game as well.

[KingDingaLing090]

All you can look for is a frequency of warmer than normal times?

Phil Jones "There has been cooling (0.12C degrees per decade since 2002)"

Is this evil prick still trying to scam us into slavery? We know the whole thing is a complete HOAX from bottom to top. This idiot doesnt even know crap about earth he studies Venus. We actually cut out space exporation to study global warming. This guy is a maniac. He is a sociopath no wonder the government put him in the position he is in. He is a LIAR.

[RyuDekay]

Keep writing letters, you aren't fooling anyone. CO2 from burning coal is not warming the earth. It is all an elaborate hoax that was proven and exposed. Good luck on continuing to try pulling the wool over our eyes. It is too late, give it up.

[RyuDekay]

HEY, DIDN'T YOU GE ARRESTED BY CONFRONTING HARD WORKING COAL MINERS? LOL

[RyuDekay]

There is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. We are not fooled by your political agenda.

[RyuDekay]

I love these videos! Anyone that does a little research would come to the conclusion that James Hansen is a liar. Keep talking your craziness Hansen! Love the dice! Doesn't make me believe your political views though. lol

[KentAllard]

bring back streetcars

[judomagyar]

He is licking his lips like some liars do

[judomagyar]

CO2 is not causing warming

[mistercoolnoseking]

thank you for this very important video

[judomagyar]

Hansen is lying by misrepresenting the data!

He insists that, the period from 1951-1980 was THE NORMAL period. In fact it was a cold period and people like him had written books about the coming ice age and that it is urgent that we do something about it.

He is selling used cars here.

By the way, Dr, Miskolczi had resigned from NASA because they would not publish his work, since it proved Hansen wrong. Nice bunch of scientists turned activists, like Hansen.

[Tapecutter59]

@judomagyar Someone is lying to you but it's not Hansen. The National Academies of Science first warned the US government about AGW in 1958, they have not changed their mind.

Here is a clip from a 1958 documentry about the NAS warning watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

BTW, Miskolczi is associated with the Heartland institute. Heartland is a lobby group who have been sponsered for the last 20yrs by Exxon and Phillip Morris to produce pro-tabacoo and anti-AGW "scientists".

[judomagyar]

@Tapecutter59

You guys keep doing the same thing: don't debate the science, attack the person.

No wonder... 24% of Americans does not know that the Earth orbits the Sun. How can you debate the science?

[Tapecutter59]

@judomagyar "don't debate the science, attack the person."

Ok, you're a gullible halfwit.

[judomagyar]

@Tapecutter59

Thank you.

[gerjanp]

"Ok, you're a gullible halfwit."

You prove the point.

[judomagyar]

I watched the clip from 1958. I like the 120 feet sea level rise.

[judomagyar]

this is a video about Hansen fro you:

watch?v=BkCCcBxZuoI

[Tapecutter59]

@judomagyar

Your vid is worthless opinion. Hansen's 1988 paper is online at NASA, go and read it.

20yrs ago Hansen's models correctly PREDICTED "polar amplification" and "statospheric cooling" both of which have since been observed via sattelite measurements.

Testable predictions are the essence of science. Arguing against something that was not predicted is a strawman. Please go and look up the meaning of "statistically significant trend"

[OvoidCranium]

Why is this flagged as spam?

[judomagyar]

Hansen is wrong.

Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczi's theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.

[OvoidCranium]

"Yeah right, increasing water vapour which is a GHG is going to cool things down just like it does in the tropics. "

Paltridge , Arking and Pook 2009 can answer that for you.

as for that formula it extrapolates to impossible temperatures the Beer Lambert Bouguer exponential decay is better formulation and one used in the Schwarzschild radiation transfer equations.

[Tapecutter59]

That paper pertains to the upper atmosphere and the slight -ve feedback is totally overwhelmed by the +ve feedback of increased water vapour in the troposphere.

In case you were unaware Hansen's models predicted upper atmosphere cooling as a result of AGW in the 1980's and sattelite observations have since confirmed that prediction via direct observation.

At tropospheric pressures the difference between my (easy to understand) method and your QM method is trivial, ie: less than 0.01 degC

[OvoidCranium]

"That paper pertains to the upper atmosphere and the slight -ve feedback is totally overwhelmed by the +ve feedback of increased water vapour in the troposphere. "

You don't know much about feed back do you? We know James Hansen doesn't it's not part of an Astronomers training. Now do you think a little extra water vapour n ear the surface where absorption is already saturated will make a difference?

[Tapecutter59]

I was wondering when you would start with the insults, "coincidently" it occured at the same point you start displaying ignorance about what constitutes a feedback.

Near surface atmosphere is always close to it's stauration point, the feedback part is that the stauration point can be raised since it depends on two variables, pressure and TEMPRATURE.

Observations show that water vapour has increased by ~5% since 1970 due to increased TEMPRATURE. By definition that is an observed +ve feedback.

[OvoidCranium]

"I was wondering when you would start with the insults"

No insults just facts when you start talking about positive feedback in a dissipative system like the climate system I now you are talking off the top of your head, because you are effectively talking about water running spontaneously uphill or heat up a temperature gradient. It's not happening it's not going to happen.

In spite of that 5 % rise the atmospheric optical depth trend has been flat for the past 61 years.

[gerjanp]

"In spite of that 5 % rise the atmospheric optical depth trend has been flat for the past 61 years."

He wasn't planning to but he's had his arm twisted and will publish the results with bit of background.

Well Venus is an interesting case the core supposition ... because the sunlight does not reach the ground.

LOL you'll never be able to convince anyone of that even though it is true.

[Tapecutter59]

Good grief you talk a lot of nonesense in one post. Optical depth 60yrs ago can only be estimated since it requires a sattelite to measure radiation above the atmosphere, it's also affected by smog far more than it is by CO2. Never the less the best guess is that the atmosphere is absorbing 3% more IR than it did 60yrs ago (source NASA)

The Albedo of Venus is 0.65-0.75 meaning roughly 30% of the much stronger sunlight that hits Venus reaches the ground. (source ESA).

[gerjanp]

"Optical depth 60yrs ago can only be estimated since it requires a sattelite to measure radiation above the atmosphere"

You are wrong it can actually be computed using radiosonde data using line by line codes; the methods are quite well validated and has been used to check the calibration of satellite instruments.

"Never the less the best guess"

Go right ahead keep on guessing I'll stick with measurement and computation. There is no direct method of measuring absorption.

[gerjanp]

"The Albedo of Venus is 0.65-0.75 ... reaches the ground."

2 problems with this:

You're confused about reflectivity and opacity. What is not reflected by the cloud layer is absorbed by the cloud layer and the atmosphere before it can reach the surface .

Heat can only transfer from hot to cold and with a solar constant of 2614 the effective temperature of the sun is ~463K the atmospheric temperature at altitude 37 km it can go no further.

[Tapecutter59]

Rubbish, you can have a multitude of feedbacks in any system where the forcings are changing.

This is why some people refer to your crowd as deniers, denying the well established GHG properties of CO2 and water vaopur is just as ridiculous as denying gravity, evolution or any other robust finding of science that does not conform to your preconcieved notions.

I don't call you a denier I call you a psuedo-skeptic since you uncritically parrot the talking points of anti-science lobbyists.

[gerjanp]

"Rubbish, you can have a multitude of feedbacks in any system where the forcings are changing. "

I see that you are having serious problems with the second law of thermodynamics and directions of heat, energy or water flow.

The GHG properties that you think are well established are not, least of all those that violate the second law of thermodynamics.

These things are best understood by those of us who have use that knowledge to design, build and make things work.

[OvoidCranium]

"I don't call you a denier I call you a psuedo-skeptic since you uncritically parrot the talking points of anti-science lobbyists."

This is a self referential comment if ever there was one. You are simply parroting the talking points of climatologists who have uncritically and without understanding adopted the terminology go Bode theory of feedback amplifiers without analysing the signal energy flow in the system.

Heat flows in one direction only from hot to cold get used to it.

[Tapecutter59]

And your simply pulling star trek gobbledygook out of your arse to deny the pysical properties of GHG that have been known for the past two centuries.

I wasted enough time with you, like all climate trolls your dogma is impenatrable and I have no desire to listen to your ridiculous assertions and implied conspiracy theories any longer.

[OvoidCranium]

As I thought you are completely clueless and incapable of thinking for yourself and checking the science for yourself.

If you think most of science (except climate science in our opinion by the look of it) has hasn't moved on in the past 2 centuries you are sadly mistaken.

Good bye.

[KingDingaLing090]

@Tapecutter59 Give me a fact that proves man is causing life threatening global warming.

[Tapecutter59]

@KingDingaLing090 RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1) - Fourier 1824

[KingDingaLing090]

@Tapecutter59 tiehr 1290974 whfwihfr 12334. There is my proof that you are WRONG. What now?

[Tapecutter59]

@KingDingaLing090 Now the conversation stops due to your lack of education.

[KingDingaLing090]

@Tapecutter59 -You are intelligent? ROTFLMA!!! I can fart in a jar and find a law too. That doesnt mean I can fart enough to stink up my backyard. The third assessment IPCC report is laughable and I can disporve it along with your collection of meaningless numbers (that you don't even undestand) with the words of the author himself Phil Jones: 'There has been cooling (10.12C degrees per decade since 2002)'

Looks like you didnt find enough education to finish the job. Google "variables" son.

[Tapecutter59]

I take it you don't sleep under a blanket at night because your interpretaion of the second law says that a blanket cannot posibly keep you warm.

There is only one flow that counts, the heat budget of the entire planet. Everything else you are babbling about that happens inside the earth's climate system is turbulance.

[OvoidCranium]

"I take it you don't sleep under a blanket ... cannot posibly keep you warm."

Are totally and completely silly?

Of course a blanket can *keep* me warm but I have noticed that it does not do so until *I have warmed it* to nearly my skin temperature. The other thing it can't do is warm me it is a dissipative system with a steady gradient from my skin to the air outside that is the direction of the heat flow.

[gerjanp]

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people on this earth that appear reasonable intelligent that don't realise that humans along with other warm blooded animals that keep them warm. Humans sometimes need some help to minimise heat loss but if the the metabolism stops with without blanket they soon attain room temperature.

[KingDingaLing090]

@OvoidCranium " I don't call you a denier I call you a psuedo-skeptic since you uncritically parrot the talking points of anti-science lobbyists." - Tapecutter

Isn't it ironic when a brainwashed stooge calls someone a name that they can't even spell? Clearly she has never spent more than one course in any college level science class. They are pseudo-intellectuals bawking pseudo-science. The hoax of global warming practically destroyed the credibility of scientists across the globe.

[Tapecutter59]

@OvoidCranium "You don't know much about feed back do you? We know James Hansen doesn't it's not part of an Astronomers training."

Sigh, Hansen has a BA in maths, a MS in astonomy and a Phd in PHYSICS. For the last 40yrs he has worked on planetary raditaive transfer starting with Venus and then the Earth. He is quite possibly the worlds foremost expert on planetary radiative transfer.

In other words this particular "astronomer" is a tad more qulified to speak on the subject than you or I.

[FreeAgain2]

Andy Lacis PhD, a colleague of Hansens at GISS, reviewer of the IPCC4 in 05' :

"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics."

[AtlasObjectivist]

Since the total collapse of global warming and the IPCC this has all become a hugh embarrassment. One would think fraud on this scale would not be possible in the 21st century.

Lets hope real scientists will now do real science once again.

[andydongwook]

sooo true. You guys recycle, reuse and save ect lets help the enviroment!!!!!!!!!!

GO james hansen

[mekanopsis1]

I have to say; this guy is a much more effective communicator than the leaders of the Green parties and NGOs.

[FreeAgain2]

The emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, documenting various attempts to suppress data and manipulate scientific consensus with thuggish tactics, confirms what critics of the AGW movement have always maintained: it has a lot more to do with money and politics than science. In fact, the global-warming movement is essentially the opposite of science the manipulation and destruction of empirical data to support a theory whose accuracy was decided in advance.

[pqsheedy]

People who are in denial about global warming will never look at the proof. It's akin to denying evolution. Bush once said "It's just a theory." A scientific theory is not a philosophical theory. A scientific theory -- global warming, evolution, relativity -- is one that can make predictions about future outcomes and be correct. This is exactly what the global warming models predicted. Hansen's estimate range was conservative -- it's far worse than even he would say aloud 20 years ago.

[oomblikkies]

pqsheedy ... what proof are there for global warming. Faulty climate models? And if that is not enough Climategate scientist had to fudge date to hide previous warm periods and to make future temparatures even more dramatic.

[daanimalboy]

I think that when it comes to climate change its one of those situation where we shouldn't have to need 100% proof before we act. I mean if someone told you that a bomb may have been planted in your house, but we're not 100% sure, I'm sure that you would do something to avoid being killed. In this way,even if we are not 100% sure, but we may possibly see the end of the world as we know it, then we should act.

[oomblikkies]

daanimalboy - you are right, but if someone says there is a bomb in my house, I will investigate and if it proves to be a hoax, I will find the guy and take him to court.

[daanimalboy]

right too...but who do u trust? so, when u have to people telling you different things what do u do? I mean if u had one person telling u that there is definitely a bomb there, bwhile the other one tells you there isn't, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't take the risk. Right?

[oomblikkies]

Ah, now we get to the core of the issue. If someone tells you something which may affect your lifestyle, you will investigate and listen to what the experts on both sides have to say and I would urge you to first verify the credentials of Lord Monckton, ex science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and listen to what he has to say. Ignore the rumblings of politicians who in any case are not scientists and that includes Al Gore.

[daanimalboy]

Yes, exactly, we should defnitely have both sides of the argument. the problem in the world we live in where money and power rule us that it is often very difficult to know what money or power are behind certain arguments. Also, I most certainly agree with you that we should be listening to scientists on this subject and not politicians. Although I should point out that James Hansen is a scientist and Al Gore's arguments are based on scientists recommendations.

[daanimalboy]

Also, since it is difficult to know who is telling the truth, the bets policy when unsure is the safest one. My beleif is that we should always try to work with nature where possible. If you mess with nature, there will be effects and consequences, often undesireable ones. Therefore, we should try to use technologies that work with nature, rather than against it. When will we ever learn this.

[daanimalboy]

Besides this, switching to green energies, such as solar, wind, wave energy etc cannot be a bad thing anyway. The way I see it, when you interfere with nature, there wil be consequenses. Usually not good ones. Even the mere removal of the coal from the earth is possibly doing traumatic damage to the earths fragile ecosystem. we are better to work with technologies that harness earth's energy without damaging.

[oomblikkies]

daanimalboy - the only viable alternative to fossil fuel is nuclear, hydrothermal and hydroelectric. Solar and wind require huge batteries and we all know the lifetime of any battery is finite and the disposal of them WILL create a massive environmental problem. There just are not enough sites worldwide that are suitable for wave energy.

[daanimalboy]

Yes, I agree that Nuclear should be looked at. Solar and wind are viable without the use of batteries. Batteries are only required when the solar system is small and within residential conditions. Otherwise a solar powered grid would work just fine in the same way a coal powered grid works. I really doubt that there are ont enough sites worldwide to harness the power of the waves that beat against our shores. Regardless, solar is certainly viable when looked at in the context of a grid.

[oomblikkies]

A solar panel can not work in a grid. During the day it could be OKish, except the efficiency of current panels are poor and that is why a relative small unit like the space station requires such huge panels, but at least solar energy there is available 24/7, not like here on earth when the sun set behind the horizon, the solar panels become inactive and what do you do then? You can not just push a button to start a coal or nuclear plant to run just overnight.

[daanimalboy]

I mean for christs sake, even if the global warming has the slightest possibility that it was caused by man and is detrimental to our existence we should act on it. Unless we are complete morons who are full of pride.

[FreeAgain2]

CO2 is 0.03% of the entire atmosphere. Changing +/- by 0.001% is simply not enough to change World temperatures by ANY amount.

Think about it.

[Soldier957]

If you put 0,03% cyanide in a glass of water it would kill you if you drank it, even though "it's such a small percentage". Your argument fails.

[oomblikkies]

Soldier... a brief scientific lesson ... cyanide is deadly poisonous, while carbon dioxide is not, because if it was, everytime someone opens a Coke or Pepsi, he/she should fall dead from the CO2 which is inhaled while drinking the soft drink.

[daanimalboy]

yes, but you would die if the carbon dioxide you breathed in was more than the oxygen you breathed in.

[oomblikkies]

For the CO2 to become dangerous to breath, its concentration must increase 20 times and that will never happen, unless you are living in a extremely confined space like the guys from Apollo 13.

[daanimalboy]

Besides, the Co2 there are many other posioness gases created from buring coal and combusting petrol, may of which stay within our envirnoment.

[oomblikkies]

The media just loves to show those chineys with visible stuff billowing from those chineys which in actual fact are either steam or smoke (ash) which incidently should help to cool the earth. The real nasties are not visible but most modern coal stations take care of most of those pollutants by first scrubbing (water wash and magnetism) whatever goes into the chimney. The only remaining pollutants are NOx and sulfur dioxide. The NOx cause smog and SO2 aerosols which should also cool the earth.

[technatezin]

@oomblikkies From just burning coal in power plants there's not enough energy imparted onto aeresol particles to allow them to remain in the atmosphere for a long enough time to effect cooling over a large area to any significant degree. They will drift back down to the Earth in a short period of time causing respiratory diseases unlike volcanic eruptions which blows ash into the stratosphere. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain which leads to both vegetation death and ocean acidification.

[Soldier957]

I don't know where you got the 20x margin from, but let's say I trust you on it. 0,03x20=0,6. That's still a "small %", but deadly nonetheless.

A "small %" does NOT mean safe, which was what I was trying to explain.

As for CO2 in the atmosphere, the conc. would be lethal at a lot lower than 20x current value. Maybe not directly to our bodies, but because of the effect it has on other species and ecosystems that we depend upon. So, it's an indirect lethal effect sooner than a direct dito.

[judomagyar]

CO2 is innocent!

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

[Plomomedia]

cool interview. good questions too.

[erngre]

Jim Hansen is full of CRAP....

[quuaa1]

I fell asleep during this - LAME!!!

[Scottit]

I stopped at 2:30

Climate is based upon physics & science, not chance like dice.

CO2 is a GHG, but not very powerful & with diminishing effect.

[steamgeek]

"God does not play dice with the universe" was an Einstein original.

It will be good to look back 10 years form now, and revisit NASA funding priorities or HR "issues".

[forestdragon11]

Self appointed climate expert? Some evidence for that, please. He seems to have plenty of credentials, from where I'm standing.

As far as climate change, I am absolutely on board with Hansen. I've only been alive about 20 years, but I don't remember this many warm seasons 10 years ago. What I don't get is how these 50, 60, 70-something year old politicians are missing it.

[human1554215465]

@magnusea - Don't be unfair. If you want to be fair, you should focus on the Co2 emission per capita. If all human on earth have the emission per capita like a Chinese or an Indian do, the world is maybe saved. If all human have the emission per capita like American do the world is doomed. - The western world is the first culprit for all this mess, not the poor Chinese and Indian. Why, American, in all your movies you want to save the world? In reality, it looks like the opposite.

[magnusea]

human1554215465.

No, it's relevant. Average income in China and India is lower than in Europe and US, but they will as they get richer emits more CO2. Richer South-asians emits as much as Western people at similar income level.

CO2 as a threat has sound scientific base. Half of the climate scientists don't think humans has caused most of the climate change (replace space with dot):

tinyurl com

/2g8xad

[magnusea]

human1554215465.

The link is to a Nature blog, and climotology professor Hans von Storch and biology professor Dennis Bray's information about their research, as well as link to the paper.

tinyurl com

/2g8xad

[magnusea]

Here are movies with climate scientists and full of good science:

magnusorerar blogspot

com/2007/03/magnificent-global­-warming-swindfe

html (Replace spaces and new lines with dots)

Hansen ingnore China, India and southern Asia as CO2 emittors, but focus om US, UK and Germany. Does he have an anti-western discourse?

[HerHighness73]

No, he's just addressing the countries with whom we, the US, can work closely on this in the immediate future.

It is hard to ask developing countries to cut emissions without threatening development.

[magnusea]

HerHighness73: "It is hard to ask developing countries to cut emissions without threatening development."

China is the major CO2 contributor now, and the emission numbers in China and India with 2.5 billion people soars. US has recent years reduced CO2 emission. Now the financial crisis reduce carbon emissions too (this economical crisis will be heavily boosted by cap-and-trade).

Al Gore may be financed by India and China, analysists say. Gore's founding is secret.

This is a hoax.

[tomtefarbror]

Did you actually listen to the video? US historic emissions are much higher than China's.

And that the US has reduced CO2 emissions is also incorrect - still growing and now 19.4% over 1990 level.

news mongabay com/2008/0521-energy.html

And no, this is not a world-wide conspiracy by every major scientific body in every country. Tinfoil hat off please.

(for the record, I support a moratorium on coal fired power plants in both the US and China)

[magnusea]

Of course I listened. Word by word, and I'm 100% right! First your erroneous statements:

Year 2006 the size of annual CO2 emissions from China exceeded those from US. IHT (add dot):

tinyurl com/

2ckt65

Reduction of US CO2 emissions. WSJ (add dot):

tinyurl com/

a4vu4p

Europe at the same time increased its emissions despite cap-and-trade.

[tomtefarbror]

Yes, US emissions decreased by 1.3% from 2005 to 2006. Then they increased by 1.6% from 2006 to 2007 (the link in my last post that you didn't read).

You need to look at long-term trends kid.

[magnusea]

Mean while the US population increased with 1% per year, so emission per capita clearly falled in the US, but not in Europe. The long term trend is broken in the West (we wont 6-fold our consumption in 50 years), and that's natural due to development.

You can call me kid. I'm 8 years older than you are (even if you seem to be 10 years of age), got IQ 142 and decent university examinas.

[tomtefarbror]

For someone with an IQ of 142 you certainly struggle with the math.. If emissions increased by 1.6% and population increased by 1% - are you sure you want to try and tell me that per capita emissions went down?

[magnusea]

You claimed one year isn't enough. Okay! Why do you not accept both 2006 and 2007? Almost no increased emissions and two percent population growth. 2008 had also declining emissions. You struggle to cherry picked one year to create a false picture after you accused me of a one year pick.

Mean while US per capita emissions dropped, the opposite happened in Europe; emission rosed, population dropped.

Also IPCC say US emissions drops and will drop.

[Soldier957]

This comment is interesting. Could you give us sources for your statements on emission declines in 06- 08? Thank you!

[magnusea]

I know that several of the members of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science are "sceptics". Does every major scientific body include Russian Academies of Science? Its head and others are "sceptics", just as every second climate scientist due to climate science Professor von Storch and Professor Bray. Nature blog (add dot):

tinyurl com/2g8xad

Consensus is not science. It's used where thruth is replaced by politics.

[magnusea]

No one cares if you, as a totally non-important person, "supports" your own fantasy moratorium against China. China now plans to increase coal energy by 30 percent the next 6 years, and I have not seen a single official climate alarmist oppose them for this or takes action to stop it.

[magnusea]

Btw, you show that completely irrelevant statistics can give any answer. Sweden had 6 times as high emissions than 50 years ago and will never have less emmissions of the healthy life giving gas CO2. Your year, 1990, say nothing about the emissions now. I say they are reduced since 2006, and all adequate statistics supports that. Don't argue with bad arguments. You should know you'll get caught with cheap tricks.

[tomtefarbror]

"the healthy life giving gas CO2"

Jeez..Which planet are you from? Certainly not Earth..or Venus, where the CO2-rich atmosphere has boosted the temperature to 460 degree Celsius!

[magnusea]

Tomtefarbror don't know earth during 10th of millions of years of development of our flora and fauna had several times higher CO2 concetration (even during ice ages). He don't know that CO2 fertilize plants so that deserts now becomes green. Almost all chemistry professionals I know think a warmer earth cause CO2 to rise, not the opposite! Tomtefarbror don't know he breath out 45000 ppm. Be cautious ;) He don't know evolution scientists has CO2 as no.1 life bringning molecule, not O2 and H2O.

[magnusea]

You say CO2 is not life giving because Venus have a different atmosphere? That's irrelevant and stupid, although Gore had the same argument. Venus atmosphere has >100000 times more CO2 per volume. Let us divide its 400 degrees C with 100000 to get degrees per 400 ppm on earth. We get 0.004 degrees C at a change from 0 to 400 ppm. Scared? That Venus is closer to the sun is important! Miskolczi's climate model fits Venus perfect. Earth may get 0.2 degrees C warmer.

miskolczi webs com

[tomtefarbror]

Wow..climate science is so simple you can do all the calculations within the space of a youtube comment? Guess we don't need all those GCM's and super computers..

Yes, Venus certainly is closer to the Sun than Earth.. But it's over twice as far away as Mercury, yet Mercury is much colder. CO2 matters.

[magnusea]

tomtefarbror: "Wow..climate science is so simple you can do all the calculations within the space of a youtube comment?"

Only Gore did a poor job on the construction lift. My math is correct. You say CO2 levels on Venus has the implication that CO2 on earth change climate. If you're right the implication of CO2 increased from 380 to 769 ppm is 0.004 C.

No climate scientist support Gore's Venus argument, but journalists, Gore (of course), Lynas and you appear unbelievably stupid!

[magnusea]

tomtefarbror. "CO2 matters" Straw man. No "sceptics" denies the greenhouse effect. The debate is about (1) the size of it, (2) if humans or natural warming cause higher CO2 levels, (3) if benifits of warmth are less than drawbacks etc. (1): IPCC assume a three times reinforcing from positive feedback. Our stable climate, proved by reaction to volcanoes and changes in clouds, suggests negative feedback. Climate scientist Chylek, Schwartz, Lindzen, Spencer, Idso, Miskolczi chose negative feedback.

[Scottit]

Mercury is not cold.

The CO2 on Venus is incredibly dense & a very high portion of the atmosphere. Check out the figs & don't be so ignorant.

[magnusea]

Btw, several times higher (normal) CO2 concentration during millions of years before is the reason why higher CO2 concentration fertilizes plants and is good. Many studies shows that change from 280 to 380 ppm increases crops with >50%. Therefor lower concentraion, during an ice age ( ~180 ppm), is bad.

Also: If you study natural science and climate science you'll find only IPCC climate models have reinforcing positive feedback that for any calculation contradicts nature.

[tomtefarbror]

Weather the dinosaurs enjoyed the high CO2 concentration 100 million years ago really says nothing whatsoever about weather a human civilisation of 6.5 billion people would be able to cope with a significantly warmer planet, fresh water shortages and failing agriculture.

[oomblikkies]

@tomtefarbror: Well, the Vikings enjoyed life during the Medieval period when it was warmer than today. They even farmed on Greenland.

[Simplex1swrhs90]

@oomblikkies

The Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon in the North Atlantic Region and not a global phenomenon. The warming happening today is happening on a global level hence the name global warming, though the warming is not uniform across the planet. The Arctic and northern latitudes are warming the fastest because when snow and ice melt the land surface becomes darker and absorbs more sunlight so that amplifies the warming effect.

[oomblikkies]

Simplex .. If you claim the Medieval period was a regional occurrence, then I am saying to you that the current global warming is also regional, and even more regional because its limited to cities only where the Heat Island effect governs the local climate. The climate models are biased in favour of positive feedbacks - they ignore neg feedback like warm oceans..more evaporation .. more clouds .. more reflection back to space of heat from the sun.

[Simplex1swrhs90]

@oomblikkies

I realize I am talking to a conservative and a denier so I more than likely just wasted my time trying to explain this science to you. I wouldn't even consider myself a liberal but I still agree and accept the mainstream scientific consensus on AGW.

[oomblikkies]

@Simplex .. I believe the facts should be our guide, no matter where they fall, and at the moment the facts overwhelmingly rejects the alarmists doomsday scenario. How on earth can you accept mainstream consensus as the guideline? Mainstream scientist said at the turn of the previous century that physics will prevent an object heavier than air from flying. Well, the Wright brothers proved them wrong. Also it was falsely believed that the atom could not be split without disastrous consequences.

[human1554215465]

Jim Hansen is THE hero trying to awake human to stand to save the world, but rich don't care about saving the world, they just want to continue watching superhero movies and driving cars. Jim Hansen is not corrupted, he thinks in the interests of the most people rather than the few. People agree with science if it offers new opportunities, when it opens doors, but they disagree with science when it advices to close doors. People just don't listen, so we know how it all ends. Bye civilization.

[AriesLudzik]

This charlatan, Hansen, should be sued for professional malpractice - last month he & his GISS announced that October 2008 was the hottest October on record. Turns out the reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

He is a fraud and has committed massive errors like this many times. His lies are legion !

[wilbert1755]

A self appointed climate expert.

[DennyMclain2008]

this guy wears footie pajamas.

[Tonyrcan]

The idiots who deny what Hansen says are ostriches with their heads in the sand. The science is in, the empirical data is in (who misses it?) what the &*&*&*(&*. Sham science ?

Fly over the Greenland, witness the advance of deserts, the climate changes (not to be confused with seasons)

These numb nuts will lead us like the Judas goats in abattoirs to our death.

[thisrealityhere]

I strongly agree with you Tony. All this ruckus about lowering gas prices is making me sick to my stomach. We're already spotting funnel clouds in Toronto. When are people gonna wake up and see the big picture.

[wilbert1755]

Of course since you have seen it all on TV it must be true? he is a Self appointed Climate expert .

[wilbert1755]

he is a self appointed Climate expert.

[bluesdrummer715]

Funny 30+years ago this guy claimed for years we were heading into another ice age! Scientist that get political and convince backers with millions to invest, have no credibility in my book. This sham science is nothing more than making billions selling the so called carbon credit. Why isn't this message voiced to Asia, India, Russia, who pollute so much more than we do. Look up the top 5 cities with the most pollution! They're all in China!

[lumajs]

The fact that folks like Hansen are listened to prove that we don't really live in a scientific society.

Exactly 20 years ago, he predicted that the doom was approaching and between 1988 and 2008, the Earth would heat up by 1 °C or so. The warming was much closer to 0 than his prediction and May 2008 was cooler than May 1988 but instead of accepting that his forecasts schemes are simply wrong, many politicians and others listen to this pseudoscientist more than they did 20 years ago.

[OmniSurveyor]

1951 to 1980. Using a 25 year period as the model of what the earth's temperature should be sounds like B.S. to me.

[OmniSurveyor]

That should have been a 30 year period. it's still B.S.