Climate change is here — and worse than we thought

[Vergent]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here--and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html

[TerryM]

The comments on the article were to be expected - but the cartoon was wonderful!

Terry

[ben4vols]

Hansen is a fool. His 1988 projections came true? Bahahahahaha. Delusional much??

[dabize]

Hansen is a fool. His 1988 projections came true? Bahahahahaha. Delusional much??

This is really in poor taste, even for a troll

[ben4vols]

This is really in poor taste, even for a troll

He is either a fool or he is lying. His 1988 projections did not come true. Unless he is using a very very wide error margin.

[PhillipS]

http://www.washingto...504a_story.html

It wil be interesting to read the paper when it comes out. I wish I could believe that it will make a difference - but, sadly, the willfully ignorant haven't budged much since Hansen first briefed Congress in 1988.

Almost a quarter century of opportunity lost - disheartening for any rational person but particularly so for those of us with kids and grandkids (we found out recently that our first grandkid is on the way). Look at the climate mess we'll be handing over to them.

[toronto blizzard]

Philip

If you're wondering why people don't give a rats fadoo about AGW it's because people aren't stupid and they aren't going to believe nonsense that the media says ala Hansen

[bluewave]

He is either a fool or he is lying. His 1988 projections did not come true. Unless he is using a very very wide error margin.

The observations, the black curve in Figure 1, show that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, as predicted. The observed temperature fluctuates a lot, because the real world is a “noisy”, chaotic system, but there is a clear warming trend. Curiously, the scenario that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be almost dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2°C for doubled CO2, but our best estimate for true climate sensitivity2 is closer to 3°C for doubled CO2. There are various other uncertain factors that can make the warming larger or smaller3. But it is becoming clear that our prediction was in the right ballpark.

http://www.columbia....on_20050927.pdf

His 1981 paper really hit it out of the Park.

http://thedgw.org/de...reasing_co2.pdf

and opening ofthe fabled Northwest Passage.

http://www.livescien...st-passage.html

Scientists have confirmed that in August, Arctic sea ice shrank to its lowest levels since satellite measurements began monitoring the region nearly 30 years ago. One consequence of this is that the Northwest Passage has opened up much earlier than expected.

[toronto blizzard]

Stop trying to defend Hansen bluewave. Our Earth was much hotter before without CO2. And also CO2 is proven to not cause much warming

[bluewave]

Stop trying to defend Hansen bluewave. Our Earth was much hotter before without CO2. And also CO2 is proven to not cause much warming

What is your track record with long range climate predictions?

Were you talking about the opening of the Northwest Passage

back in 1981?

[toronto blizzard]

What makes you think if we can't even predict a few months ahead let alone a few weeks and we're trying to predict what's going to happen to the climate in 20,30,40 years from now? Give me a break

[bluewave]

What makes you think if we can't even predict a few months ahead let alone a few weeks and we're trying to predict what's going to happen to the climate in 20,30,40 years from now? Give me a break

Hansen's 1981 forecast came in on the low side.

You can agree or disagree with his statement on the 1988 call. The common

denominator in all his calls is that he correctly predicted that we would warm between 1980 and

now and that it would have important implications.

I am not sure why people get so mad at Hansen. He even disagreed with many politicians on

how do best deal with emissions. He was looking out for the average person against to concentrated

power of big government and big business.

http://www.nytimes.c...n/07hansen.html

[The_Global_Warmer]

What is your track record with long range climate predictions?

Were you talking about the opening of the Northwest Passage

back in 1981?

Ignore the troll. He has yet to make a worthwhile post just daily trolling posts now. You will just get upset wasting your time in the end.

But the NW passage thing is classic.

This year is opened up in July. Back in 2008 it was supposed to be a fluke. Now it's opening by late July.

There is a thread about a new paper that is already in publishing that went to publishing about the AMO and Sea Ice. It got no play but from couple posters who in the thread deny the papers claims out right and are still making absurd completely unfounded claims about the AMO and PDO in regards to sea ice.

There is a thread about Watts new paper that vehemently by skeptics and maybe some deniers defended to stay on task about the science. This paper wasn't published, it was posted to an AD Money blog. It took a couple days for those saying it's a new day in this forum to clearly ignore Toronto Blizzard and Watts et al. If I have read correctly Peilke SR and Mcintyre both walked dead right away from Watts after they saw how quickly the BS was exposed. But Watts and Christy got what they wanted the paper filed in the congressional hearing.

But we can't talk about that. It has nothing to do with science. Talk about a nasty scam. If Watts et al ever gets published by a respectable journal it won't look like it does now.

[donsutherland1]

What makes you think if we can't even predict a few months ahead let alone a few weeks and we're trying to predict what's going to happen to the climate in 20,30,40 years from now? Give me a break

One cannot accurately predict year-to-year fluctuations on account of internal variability e.g., one does not know whether 2018 will be a La Niña, Neutral ENSO, or El Niño year. However, one can predict time spans with more confidence.

For example, just using a simple linear regression equation for global land and ocean temperature anomalies (GISS) and CO2, the implied average anomaly for the 2001-2010 period was about +0.507°C to +0.553°C. The actual 2001-10 anomaly was +0.549°C. If one uses the same linear regression, an implied average for the 2011-20 period would be +0.578°C to +0.634°C should there be no meaningful increase/decrease in the rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

I wouldn't necessarily try to predict the above anomaly for the 10-year period ending 2020 given that there are additional factors to consider, especially as I used the highly simplified example for illustrative purposes only, but would suggest that one can reasonably suggest that the odds favor the 2011-20 period being warmer than the 2001-10 period.

Moreover, if the figures from the simplified scenario are in the proverbial ballpark, one could see one or more years during the 2011-20 period exceed the 2010 benchmark (+0.63°C) for warmest year on record. Should the current emerging El Niño rival the 2002-03 and 2009-10 events in duration and magnitude, 2013 might be a candidate to approach or exceed that record.

[bluewave]

Ignore the troll. He has yet to make a worthwhile post just daily trolling posts now. You will just get upset wasting your time in the end.

But the NW passage thing is classic.

This year is opened up in July. Back in 2008 it was supposed to be a fluke. Now it's opening by late July.

There is a thread about a new paper that is already in publishing that went to publishing about the AMO and Sea Ice. It got no play but from couple posters who in the thread deny the papers claims out right and are still making absurd completely unfounded claims about the AMO and PDO in regards to sea ice.

There is a thread about Watts new paper that vehemently by skeptics and maybe some deniers defended to stay on task about the science. This paper wasn't published, it was posted to an AD Money blog. It took a couple days for those saying it's a new day in this forum to clearly ignore Toronto Blizzard and Watts et al. If I have read correctly Peilke SR and Mcintyre both walked dead right away from Watts after they saw how quickly the BS was exposed. But Watts and Christy got what they wanted the paper filed in the congressional hearing.

But we can't talk about that. It has nothing to do with science. Talk about a nasty scam. If Watts et al ever gets published by a respectable journal it won't look like it does now.

Yeah, people in 1981 were thinking about the series of brutally cold winters during that era.

I don't think most people payed much attention to talk of the Northwest Passage opening

up in the future due to global warming.

[WeatherRusty]

Ignore the troll. He has yet to make a worthwhile post just daily trolling posts now. You will just get upset wasting your time in the end.

But the NW passage thing is classic.

This year is opened up in July. Back in 2008 it was supposed to be a fluke. Now it's opening by late July.

There is a thread about a new paper that is already in publishing that went to publishing about the AMO and Sea Ice. It got no play but from couple posters who in the thread deny the papers claims out right and are still making absurd completely unfounded claims about the AMO and PDO in regards to sea ice.

There is a thread about Watts new paper that vehemently by skeptics and maybe some deniers defended to stay on task about the science. This paper wasn't published, it was posted to an AD Money blog. It took a couple days for those saying it's a new day in this forum to clearly ignore Toronto Blizzard and Watts et al. If I have read correctly Peilke SR and Mcintyre both walked dead right away from Watts after they saw how quickly the BS was exposed. But Watts and Christy got what they wanted the paper filed in the congressional hearing.

But we can't talk about that. It has nothing to do with science. Talk about a nasty scam. If Watts et al ever gets published by a respectable journal it won't look like it does now.

We can't ignore them Friv. They represent a major force to be overcome if we have any hope of a sustainable future free from the perils of climate change. The tentacles of denial reach all the way to the highest places of influence. They are not interested in the science. They are political ideologues invested in a world view that does not permit things like global warming and biological evolution. Our battle is huge and I believe will only be won beginning at the grassroots level.

These people are being taken advantage of by a higher order of self interested, very powerful and rich scum bags. Of course part of their plan is to accuse us of the same thing. Difference is, we really do have science on our side.

[dabize]

We can't ignore them Friv. They represent a major force to be overcome if we have any hope of a sustainable future free from the perils of climate change. The tentacles of denial reach all the way to the highest places of influence. They are not interested in the science. They are political ideologues invested in a world view that does not permit things like global warming and biological evolution. Our battle is huge and I believe will only be won beginning at the grassroots level.

These people are being taken advantage of by a higher order of self interested, very powerful and rich scum bags. Of course part of their plan is to accuse us of the same thing. Difference is, we really do have science on our side.

Agreed

Most scientists who have been as consistently and prominently right about really big, important things as Hansen has about AGW.....have a Nobel Prize. Maybe he'll get one eventually - but only after the deniers get bombed out of their last defenses by a concerted assault by the facts (an example of this dynamic is Stanley Prusiner, father of the "prion"). By the time that happens it will be clear to all who the fools and idiots are, but they will have done their damage by then.

People who falsely and gratuitously demean courageous scientists like Hansen for trying to help ALL of our grandkids should be ruthlessly ridiculed with the facts.

[TerryM]

Agreed

Most scientists who have been as consistently and prominently right about really big, important things as Hansen has about AGW.....have a Nobel Prize. Maybe he'll get one eventually - but only after the deniers get bombed out of their last defenses by a concerted assault by the facts (an example of this dynamic is Stanley Prusiner, father of the "prion"). By the time that happens it will be clear to all who the fools and idiots are, but they will have done their damage by then.

People who falsely and gratuitously demean courageous scientists like Hansen for trying to help ALL of our grandkids should be ruthlessly ridiculed with the facts.

Very nicely put!

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

Agreed

Most scientists who have been as consistently and prominently right about really big, important things as Hansen has about AGW.....have a Nobel Prize. Maybe he'll get one eventually - but only after the deniers get bombed out of their last defenses by a concerted assault by the facts (an example of this dynamic is Stanley Prusiner, father of the "prion"). By the time that happens it will be clear to all who the fools and idiots are, but they will have done their damage by then.

People who falsely and gratuitously demean courageous scientists like Hansen for trying to help ALL of our grandkids should be ruthlessly ridiculed with the facts.

Scientists such as Mann and Hansen are demonized precisely because they represent the public face of the enemy. In skeptic circles they are treated like Hitler and Stalin, to be despised as the head of a pernicious evil. Those guys must have huge cojones to not just walk away from it all.

My daughter gave me two grandkids and they are wonderful. Enjoy!

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's one thing for a Man likely born into the riches of oil not see or not admit to himself of his wrongdoing on a large scale moral and ethical plane. But it's quite another for people who are commoners with no vested interest financially in the industries that are against AGW reform in govt policy. These people have no reason to deny factual science. When you say mostly Pro-AGW papers get into publications you are confirming the reality. It has nothing to do with money. If Solar was the cause of this it would be proven from satellite data. We have come a long way.

James Hansen saw this coming in the 1970s as well as many other scientists involved in the actual research. We have seen this continue to accelerate for 4 decades. Think of the technological and informational advances we have had since the 1970s. We are the most advance scientific society to ever exist on Earth. And we are out doing ourselves in yearly to three yearly intervals. 2009 is irrelevant in science compared to now. It's amazing.

We are little ape men sitting at our CPU's, laptops, phones, small portable cpu/laptop/phone devices that kick all ass. We watch in real time from satellites(machines that orbit the Earth in space and let us know the happenings of our entire solar system in near real time and the Earth-Sun in real time.) Yeah, dig us, we are kicking ass. Not to mention any other amazing modern technology. We have a very good understanding of what we are doing. Not to mention all of that technologies data confirms it.

How can anyone deny that who is aware of how we track it and know it. I read some of those denier blogs and most of the posters has no idea what an AMSR2 is or a Grace or Jason or Envisat, or have any clue the extensive satellite data programs that are powerhouse and streamlined compared to the 1970s. It's amazing what we have done. Remote Sensing with buoys and radar almeter products from helicopters, soon drone's will fly the ice measuring missions in the arctic to give UN-parraled accuracy and data combined with crysosat's incredibly super high resolution data. AMSR2 with the most stunning channel 89 data to date. double resolution from lower channels spatial footpring is 2.7 x 5.2 km. GPS, old school weather ballons, models and modern algorithmic technologies giving us amazing accuracy in land based, surface based, water based temperatures.

The average person doesn't know better, anyone using these products knows better.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Oh I don't want to forget ARGO. Having thousands of buoys to measure the oceans heat/temperatures at different heights is pretty amazing to supplement satellite and air-borne data. Ice cores, trees are both great looks into the past. carbon dating, and dating with evolutionary biology.

It's like a fat kid in a candy store getting to use these technologies everyday.

How fun.

I have go put some new furniture together, I love trying to figure it out without the directions, but I hate the tedious work with my hands with tiny screws and such.

But I have to make it back for tonight's model runs and ice data considering the special weather event about to take place. A possible 950's MB low on August 5th-6th is pretty special.

Does anyone have any stats on that? It's gotta be rare.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

We can't ignore them Friv. They represent a major force to be overcome if we have any hope of a sustainable future free from the perils of climate change. The tentacles of denial reach all the way to the highest places of influence. They are not interested in the science. They are political ideologues invested in a world view that does not permit things like global warming and biological evolution. Our battle is huge and I believe will only be won beginning at the grassroots level.

These people are being taken advantage of by a higher order of self interested, very powerful and rich scum bags. Of course part of their plan is to accuse us of the same thing. Difference is, we really do have science on our side.

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence. The nice thing about reality is, when you don't believe in it, doesn't go away. Thinking something and wanting something makes it neither real or true when it comes to AGW denialism. The sad thing is nothing will ever become real for sceptics until it is experienced or learned. We all know learning isn't their strong suit and evidentally experiencing is a painfully slow process.

[ORH_wxman]

Hansen's temperature forecast from 1988 is failing miserably and will continue to do so without some major unforeseen change in global temperatures over the next couple of decades. Maybe that's what the "worse than we thought" part is referring to...the forecast accuracy. It is of course ignored in the article all joking aside...what they focus on is the "loaded dice" argument which is an easy topic to defend because its not really possible to disprove it either. It's a probability based argument.

The type of bias seen in this article is not unique to Hansen though to be fair. It is seen from all angles of the climate debate.

[gracetoyou]

Hansen is a fool. His 1988 projections came true? Bahahahahaha. Delusional much??

Oh don't worry, he'll have come creative way of pointing out he didn't really predict what he predicted. He'll just change it...he's good at that.

[LocoAko]

When is the paper due out?

[WeatherRusty]

Hansen's temperature forecast from 1988 is failing miserably and will continue to do so without some major unforeseen change in global temperatures over the next couple of decades. Maybe that's what the "worse than we thought" part is referring to...the forecast accuracy. It is of course ignored in the article all joking aside...what they focus on is the "loaded dice" argument which is an easy topic to defend because its not really possible to disprove it either. It's a probability based argument.

The type of bias seen in this article is not unique to Hansen though to be fair. It is seen from all angles of the climate debate.

Is the threat of climate change really contingent on Hansen's 1988 predictions? If I had never heard of James Hansen I would still accept the physical basis for AGW.

Climate is a statistical entity by nature. The dice are always loaded for whatever is the current climate reality. The normal distribution of events is not permanently stuck in one position. That's the reality of how our world works. Climate probability changes when the weather parameters which drive the weather change, few as important as temperature and humidity.

[The_Global_Warmer]

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence. The nice thing about reality is, when you don't believe in it, doesn't go away. Thinking something and wanting something makes it neither real or true when it comes to AGW denialism. The sad thing is nothing will ever become real for sceptics until it is experienced or learned. We all know learning isn't their strong suit and evidentally experiencing is a painfully slow process.

Quite a few are strong learners. Quite a few chooae to ignore reality. Go to wuwt.com reaed the most recent sea ice threads comments. it might be a traumatic experience. Then read ours here and nevens blog.

while two of them are more science based, one is utterly ridiculous. That is the denier/skeptic place.

I dont know, what is being argued. As soon as we talk about ways to progress to prevent bad AGW. Deniers start opening up and talking. If we talk about AGW itself they go against reason and fact sometimes to the point of throwing out all if their integrity.

[WeatherRusty]

Oh don't worry, he'll have come creative way of pointing out he didn't really predict what he predicted. He'll just change it...he's good at that.

What did he predict? Don't say parts of NYC under water by now because he said no such thing on the record. That would be foolish!

[ORH_wxman]

Is the threat of climate change really contingent on Hansen's 1988 predictions? If I had never heard of James Hansen I would still accept the physical basis for AGW.

Climate is a statistical entity by nature. The dice are always loaded for whatever is the current climate reality. The normal distribution of events is not permanently stuck in one position. That's the reality of how our world works. Climate probability changes when the weather parameters which drive the weather change, few as important as temperature and humidity.

I agree with most of what you said here...and you are definitely right that the climate is not static...it never was and probably never will be.

I was just talking about the article written by Hansen and the always familiar headline of "worse than we thought".

[Vergent]

When is the paper due out?

Read the article. It's in there, I promise.