Rapid warming unavoidable?: Hansen et.al presents on the state we’re in (must watch video)

The American Geophysical Union is currently holding a conference in San Francisco. Over 20,000 people are attending the conference. Fortunately for us, many of the presentations are being posted to YouTube and there is an amazing volume of science available on the site freely available.

James Hansen and others recently presented on the potentional for rapid warming in this 2011 video. It is an important video, and well worth watching:

In a nutshell: we can’t afford to keep burning fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere.

Stephen Lewandowsky gives a good overview:

Science is debate, and the AGU meeting is the biggest annual debate of climate scientists in the world. It is a debate that extends over five days, each filled with 12 hours or more of non-stop science. 

There is, however, one issue that is not being debated: Nowhere is there a debate about the fundamental facts that the globe is rapidly warming and that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for that warming. 

That scientific debate ceased decades ago. 

It is only in the fantasy world of climate denial that ignorant chatter about those physical fundamentals continues, to the detriment of the public which would be better served without such distracting noise. 

Among the 20,000 geophysicists and scientists from other disciplines in attendance at the AGU meeting, there is no mention of the denialist troupe of cranks who do “science” by writing letters to the editor. 

With one exception. 

Dr. Jim Hansen, one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who first alerted the world to the risks from climate change decades ago, gave a presentation on Tuesday night. A patrician figure, he was greeted with a standing ovation even though the message he had to deliver, based on the latest available science, was far from encouraging. Decades ago, Dr. Hansen predicted events such as Hurricane Sandy, and he has been warning about the implications of climate change ever since. 

Dr. Hansen expressed the view that the professional dis-informers who facilitate and encourage climate denial, and who obstruct and delay a solution to the problem at great cost in dollars and human lives in support of their own short-term greed or ideological agenda, ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.

Watch the video to see how science is really done.

Tagged , , , , ,

59 thoughts on “Rapid warming unavoidable?: Hansen et.al presents on the state we’re in (must watch video)

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    Dr. Hansen expressed the view that the professional dis-informers who facilitate and encourage climate denial, and who obstruct and delay a solution to the problem at great cost in dollars and human lives in support of their own short-term greed or ideological agenda, ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.

    And you wonder why we think you are fascists – you would lock up people who disagree with you.

    All for a lie. The world is not “rapidly warming”. The world hasn’t warmed for 15 years, and nothing about the current warming is unusual. On a longer timescale, the current warming is not faster than previous warmings which occurred before massive industrialisation in the 1940s. It is not larger in magnitude than previous warm periods in the Holocene, let along past interglacials. And it is not causing dangerous changes to the global environment.

    If you want to try anyone for “crimes against humanity”, consider putting the architects of biofuel subsidies in the dock. Unlike climate skeptics, the greens who created biofuel subsidies have done some real harm.


    • Eric,
      What evidence do you have that it was ‘the greens’ who created the extremely environmentally destructive ethanol fuel from maize industry by the uneconomic subsidies put on the product?
      It sounds like a very strange thing for greens to do, but seems like a way of appearing to do something about oil shortages while actually subsidizing its use.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Thats a fair point – whoever they are, they have done something terrible.

      • john byatt says:

        Hi steve the greens are strongly opposed to using maize for ethanol, will put up there policy on bio fuel ,

        Oh here it is

        Restricting the sources of biofuels to genuine waste.
        Banning the importation or domestic production of biofuel sources such as palm oil that compromise recovery of endangered species, biodiversity and sustainable land use management.
        Ensuring that crops grown for biofuel production are based on ecologically sustainable practices such as zero land and soil degradation, optimal conservation of water and protection of the river systems
        A moratorium on the cultivation of GEOs for any part of the biofuel production process.
        Prioritisation of research and development into second and third generation biofuels including algae to biodiesel and cellulosic fuels over the extension of the ethanol excise rebate.
        Amending environment and planning laws to provide targeted environmental assessment of biofuel production including soil impacts, invasive species impact and water use impacts.
        Cancellation of the ethanol excise rebate and a diversion of this government expenditure into development of non-fossil fuel based transport and second generation biofuels production.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I don’t recall the Greens making any strongly worded press statements against biofuel subsidies.

          But I accept it might not be their fault – biofuel subsidies could just be a manifestation of the corruption which seems to be accumulating around the alternative energy / carbon trading sector.

      • rubber taster says:

        More Eric lies…john did he apologise to you yet?

      • john byatt says:

        Who is eric RB?

  2. zoot says:

    Eric once again repeats the lie that the world hasn’t warmed for 15 years when he knows that global warming really stopped in 2005. Fact.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Even the MET office agrees zoot – your denial of this simple fact is rather sad.


      The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

      • zoot says:

        No Eric, that statement is pointing out that global warming didn’t stop in 1997.
        You are either so gormless that you don’t understand the significance of “exceptionally strong El Nino” and “double-dip La Nina”, or so brazen that you think no-one will see your lie for what it is. I think it’s gormlessness – who dresses you in the morning?.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Wrong zoot, the MET office admits there has been no significant warming, then goes on to blame end point cherry picking, and a variety of climatic factors. The implication is that warming will resume, that this is a temporary blip.

          Time will tell.

      • zoot says:

        That’s like citing Columbus in support of a flat earth.
        Have you actually read the post you keep linking to?
        Are you really totally devoid of comprehension skills?
        The article starts

        An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

        and goes on to state

        Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue.

        The MET office does not agree with you.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The MET office agrees there has been no significant warming since 1997 – 0.05c is not significant warming.

          The MET office blames choice of end points and natural forcings for masking the underlying warming trend, but the implication of this position is that in the near future, apparent warming will revert to trend.

          So the test of the MET office position is time.

      • rubber taster says:

        More lies from Eric the Half a Brain

      • zoot says:

        Eric, what part of

        … but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

        don’t you understand?
        And nowhere does the MET office say

        …there has been no significant warming since 1997

        That is your baseless interpretation of their statement “if you cherry pick the start and end points you can make the trend appear to be about 0.03°C/decade”.
        Who do you think you are convincing with this charade?

      • zoot says:

        I’d believe you if you were seriously questioning why the warming stopped.

    • john byatt says:

      I worked out ( help from the WUWT mob) how to do the no warming for 16 years thingo, you use unadjusted HADCRUT three, start from 1997.25 and finish 2012.67
      voila, no warming, you have to ignore HADCRUT4 GISS RSS and the ocean below 700m , but it works fine, well it does for them

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’ve been using HADCRUT4 since you guys objected to HADCRUT3, but I refuse to use GISS – Hansen has such strong feelings on environmental issues, they have led to his arrest at least twice, so he is not qualified IMO to be an impartial observer.

        As for “ocean below 700m”, you do make me laugh.

      • rubber taster says:

        john, well done, the lies the WUWT mob perpetrate take a lot of untangling…

      • john byatt says:

        No it was Gordon Fulks fault for not turning up at uknowispeaksense, to debate the issue,

        I am just having a bit of fun at WUWT ,

        just need a fix now and then

      • rubber taster says:

        Gordon Fulks…there’s a name to think about…

      • john byatt says:

        Sorry it is the RSS that shows cooling

        as selected by john christie


      • rubber taster says:

        What does Eric the Liar do? He lies…
        Half a Bee…

      • Nick says:

        “All of them are flat….statistical noise” etc.etc.

        Whatever,Eric,there’s enough ‘statistical noise’ to keep the cryosphere shrinking and the oceans rising. Two observed realities that will help warming induced by AGHGs to continue.

        CO2 levels are rising,and the ocean/atmosphere system is responding in it naturally noisy way.

        Lewandowsky is succinct: ” It is only in the fantasy world of climate denial that ignorant chatter about those physical fundamentals continues…”

        • Eric Worrall says:

          This level of “noise” was not predicted as recently as 2008, as my numerous references to NOAA State of the Climate (2008) demonstrates.

          Click to access climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

          Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

          Naturally the climate alarmists shifted the goal posts as soon as they realised their 15 year target was in danger – Phil Jones now talks of “15 – 20 years”.

          As Judith Curry suggests in the blog I quoted (available on request – too many links and my post gets delayed), it is now becoming apparent that the “noise” is at least as important as any underlying trend from CO2 warming – that what has been dismissed as noise is in fact very much a contributor to future climate change.

      • Nick says:

        The denialati have discovered natural variability via noise…playing catch up as usual.

  3. And you wonder why we think you are fascists – you would lock up people who disagree with you.
    No Eric, no one said anything about locking up. The exact phrase was “tried for crimes against humanity.” That means, of course that no one would be locked up unless they were found to be guilty. What’s fascist about that? Are you saying that the ICJ is a fascist organization?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      What is their crime in your view? Promoting a viewpoint you don’t agree with? Is this really enough to convene a warcrimes tribunal?

      • You’re avoiding the issue, Eric. In what way is putting someone on trial fascist?
        You answer my question, I’ll answer yours.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Because the premise that a crime has been convicted is ridiculous.

          Its like putting someone on trial for being a Muslim, or putting someone on trial for campaigning for their taxes to be reduced. You’re talking about putting someone on trial for expressing their beliefs. The act of having such a trial would be an obscenity.

          In the USA, in many states, fortune telling is illegal. The law doesn’t care whether fortune tellers claim to have a scientific system of prediction. Should we put Climate Modellers on trial for breaking the fortune telling statutes? Or would the very act of having such a trial be a gross perversion of justice?

      • Sorry Eric, but you still haven’t answered the question. Your analogies are not valid. Note carefully what was written in the original article:

        Dr. Hansen expressed the view that the professional dis-informers who facilitate and encourage climate denial, and who obstruct and delay a solution to the problem at great cost in dollars and human lives in support of their own short-term greed or ideological agenda, ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Hansen’s view is an opinion. He wants people put on trial for events which haven’t occurred yet, and might never occur.

          The Eugenics catastrophists also thought that people who stood in the way of implementation of their findings were doing criminal harm to future generations. Their opinion turned out to be wrong – by far the greatest harm was done by those who followed their recommendations.

      • Nick says:

        It’s no benign ‘viewpoint’ that’s being promoted by the professional disinformers that so offend Hansen. The Moranos and Michaels of this world are being paid handsomely–are profiting–from distorting and misrepresenting science,and in Morano’s case in particular, for denigrating the motivations of scientists. They earn a crust from propaganda designed to serve the short term interests of their corporate paymasters . Those paymaster’s interests are not axiomatically the interests of the community…unless you are keen on maintaining the feudal model. I thought perhaps we had moved beyond the middle ages.

        If the result of disinformative campaigning is to degrade the viability of the biosphere and its ability to support everyone’s interests,then they have done us all a grave disservice in the name of their own freedom to trade.

        It’s quite simple. Disinformation–knowing misrepresentation– of physical realities is really similar to misleading advertising,false disclosure,seeking privilege and advantage through false representations, and fraud. It involves lying…perjury. It’s a little more than a bland difference of ‘viewpoint’ when energy policy is distorted to serve the interests of energy suppliers with the aid of disinformative strategies.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nick, by far the greatest sums of money seem to be available to the alarmists – Greenpeace and the WWF have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal, as opposed to organisations like Heartland which operate on a shoestring.

          Do you have any evidence that Morano and Watts are paid vast sums by secretive corporate interests, or are you just airing a baseless conspiracy theory?

      • Nick says:

        You can see,Eric,that folks like Morano are very good value for their clients. But it’s not as though they have generated profile, influence and position from scratch,which is something that green activism has had to do. They are already inside the tent of old money industrialism. They are defending established brands, while green activism has a much harder task of establishing a new lower impact economic way and selling that to a public that is not generally well informed about anything much…except sport perhaps.

        Big fossil energy in inter-generationally incumbent,strategically important and sits at the base of the ‘modern’ economy. It’s part of the mythology of the ‘best of times’…but it has to move with physical reality-which has ‘changed’ as we have learned more about our predicament. The paradigm has shifted, burning rock has started to reveal its true costs, but old FF is reluctant to leave the heroic comforting -and rewarding- simplicity of the past. They don’t want to write down the value of once relatively unambiguously benign assets.

        Watts is in no way as important as Morano…his value exists mainly in his own mind.. but Morano is an ex political staffer with close ties to the Reps and the hard-right end of the Murdoch empire. The beltway bullshitters can get prominence for their paymasters.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You haven’t produced any evidence that Morano is getting big payoffs for what he does.

          There are enormous sums spent on organisations which take an alarmist position on Climate Change. Heartland by comparison operates on a shoestring.


          The UK and Europe also contribute significant sums to the big green machine. I’ll dig up some references if you like.

          There are also some scandals emerging in the UK re BBC / Climate funding.

          In any case, why would big oil want to shut down green efforts? Some oil majors such as BP are large scale investors in green technology, they stand to lose a lot of money if Heartland succeeds.

          The suggestion that skeptics are funded by shadowy corporate interests is pure tinfoil hat conspiracy theory nonsense.

      • Nick says:

        ” ..or are you airing a baseless conspiracy theory”? Eric,when uncomfortable your first instinct is to attempt to cast doubt about matters that are mundane public knowledge. Morano writes and says stuff for money,simple as that it’s not illegal or secret….the sums do not have to be vast,just sufficient. The ‘stuff’ is usually misleading.

      • Nick says:

        Don’t be silly,Eric. Your pissing contest about funding is a diversion. It’s about conten and competence. Morano’s ‘writings’ are exclusively on other’s behalf and on their tab, Hansen’s biography/prognostication is clearly a mix of personal and science opinion funded from his salary and some of any awards others may have seen fit to give him. Hansen has true field expertise as a scientist. Morano is a hack writer for hire.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I see, so we should weigh the paperwork – assess the qualifications to determine whether someone should be allowed to speak on climate change. Marc Morano is only a BsC, so he shouldn’t be allowed to speak.

          Where does that lead industry funded advocacy groups like DeSmogBlog?

      • john byatt says:

        Nick whatever marc marano qualifications are, it is his paid for lies that are the obnoxius part of his character

        googled marc morano
        clicked climate depot

        heading ice loss Greenland massively overestimated
        clicked link , ended up as a newspaper story UK register

        read and found paper referred to

        The melting of polar ice sheets is a major contributor to global sea-level rise

        . Early estimates of the mass lost from the Greenland ice cap, based on satellite gravity data collected by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, have widely varied. Although the continentally and decadally averaged estimated trends have now more or less converged, to this date, there has been little clarity on the detailed spatial distribution of Greenland’s mass loss and how the geographical pattern has varied on relatively shorter time scales. Here, we present a spatially and temporally resolved estimation of the ice mass change over Greenland between April of 2002 and August of 2011

        . Although the total mass loss trend has remained linear

        , actively changing areas of mass loss were concentrated on the southeastern and northwestern coasts, with ice mass in the center of Greenland steadily increasing over the decade.

        His claim and the newspapers claim are not supported by the paper

        this is a clear case of misrepresentation of a peer reviewed paper

        this is what Hansen speaks of when he stated that these people should in the future be put on trial

        I did not even need to search out a lie from marano, first story found was a lie

      • john byatt says:

        This is the only bit that Marano wants you to know about

        , “ice mass in the center of Greenland steadily increasing over the decade”


        • Eric Worrall says:

          A little more context might be helpful John. Morano may have been comparing the paper to other papers which contained predictions of ice lass based on assumptions that the ice mass in the centre of Greenland was also declining.

      • john byatt says:

        Jason Box the scientist who recently had a paper in press about the total surface melt of greenland, only to have it happen within weeks


        ice loss acceleration

      • john byatt says:

        What it comes down to

        scientist’s fighting for funding to do science
        Marano being funded to distort it

        • Eric Worrall says:

          How do you know Hansen is not the one who is distorting the science? His views are often more alarmist than the IPCC. Perhaps Hansen should be prosecuted as well, when you convene your tribunal.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You guys do this all the time…

        Stressing status and appealing to authority

        People who use this tactic try to convince you by quoting some ‘authority’ who agrees with their claims and pointing to that person’s status, position or qualifications, instead of producing real-world evidence. The tactic is known as the argument from authority.

    • You mean the fascists, Eric? Careful, it’s beginning to look like a case of Godwin’s Law.

  4. john byatt says:

    Talking about distorting science.
    remember this one from steve goddard ( not his real name)

    on the wuwt blog where it was posted, he was told that it was obviously wrong while the goons praised him for his work

  5. unclerave says:

    Great stuff! But, don’t sell your work short by using this faint font. There are ways to make it both bigger and bolder, which are much easier to read. And, as far as I know, they won’t add to global warming!

    — YUR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: