Recently, Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS gave his 20 year anniversary speech before congress, in which he was restating the urgency of the global warming crisis we now face. Warnings of tipping points, and a call for putting “energy executives on trial for crimes against humanity and nature” were parts of that speech.
Here are the just published global temperature data sets for UAH (University of Alabama) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and the 20 year time-line. Dr. Hansen if you are reading can you kindly point out where in the time-line the crimes occurred and tipping points are?
Click for larger images
I would have thought the CO2 enhanced warming would have been further along by now. Maybe the graphs are inverted?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
sorry i ment isane
Until the beginning of this year I had been completely morphed into a “green hippie” by the constant media stream and Gore’s science fiction flop.
I am now converted
Welcome home. You now join the growing ranks of liberals who give a damn about empiricism.
This graph is still shown in textbooks and by the media, usually along with the population Hockeystick graph.
Ugh. First off, birthrates have plunged since 1990, even in the less developed countries. In the developed world, birthrates are well under the replacement rate. The only reason world population has not hit the top of the inevitable S-curve is increasing life expectancy, and the only reason the developed world’s population is not in severe decline in immigration.
Furthermore, we can house 10 people today using less real estate and with FAR more individual “elbow room” than we could house 1 person a hundred and twenty years ago.
If you want to see what’s really going on, check out the gross world product and wealth per capita deltas over the last couple of centuries. THERE’S your hockey stick! (With the blade geometrically curved skyward.)
These neomalthusian futurephobes ought to read a little history for a change!
Given the increasingly large body of evidence against AGW, does anyone know of a book or web site that treats climate change in a similar fashion?
Funny you should mention that. I am working on a point-by-point pro-and-con project. But with the avalanche of evidence over the last year (not only temperatures, but AquaSat, ArgoBot data, etc.), it’s looking a lot more con than pro!
So, then, how do we harness the harmful natural emissions or, if one thinks this forward, could harnessing naturally occurring green house gases have unintended consequences that we might not yet understand? Just trying to think proactively.
If AGW is true, we don’t harness, we sidestep. We put up a set of satellites to support a high-tech-tinfoil-in-space setup. This would be flexible and adjustable. It is estimated to cost about $1 trillion, i.e., much cheaper than capping CO2.
If, instead, we are at the start of an extended cooling, however, we could be SOL. Technology could and would adapt, but at much greater cost in both blood and treasure.
Evan….
“Welcome home. You now join the growing ranks of liberals who give a damn about empiricism.”
I am Not American. In fact I am South African and so I do not really care with regards to the arguments between “liberals” and “republicans”. In RSA we see Gore as a plain 1st World politician not as a Liberal politician. I am here to discuss the science not the politics. I am not American and therefore will not engage in debates about which party is destroying democracy, expanding empiricism etc etc. Given the fact that I am 17, I will only be able to vote in the South African election in 2009. The point is by being ‘converted’ it has been to a more open-to-real-science type person who readily questions theories and ‘ scientific consensus’ not a “liberal…epiricism”
“Ugh. First off, birthrates have plunged since 1990, even in the less developed countries. In the developed world, birthrates are well under the replacement rate.”
Nowhere in my statement did i say that the hockeystick population curve is an accurate portrayal of the current population status of Earth. Please do not assume so. I merely included it because this is what we as the schoolkids of today are shown these two graphs together to show a “possible correlation”.
I agree that the population curve is innacurate. Birthrates may have plunged since my year of birth but survival rates have not. I assume you are an American (correct me if i am wrong) and I assume (living in 1st world) that unless you have lived in a developing country you are able to make such statements? In fact in South Africa both survival and birthrates have increased shifting our pop from 45mil (2004) to 48mil(2008 ) despite mass migration of skilled labourers.
The silver lining in the over the top concern for co2 is that some will now favor nuclear because it produces very little co2.
For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50’s and 60’s but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.
More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.
In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it’s coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California’s electricity currently costs 2x Utah’s and they are on a path to keep it that way.)
Comparison: Uranium vs Thorium Based Nuclear Power
Uranium LWR /// Thorium LFTR
Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 /// 100
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 /// 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ 95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 /// 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs /// 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs
Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 /// <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% /// ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water /// Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good /// Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes /// No(very hard)
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No /// Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now /// Demonstrated
for more info see
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsUranium.ppt
charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah
Nowhere in my statement did i say that the hockeystick population curve is an accurate portrayal of the current population status of Earth.
Yes, I know. My reply was by way of agreement, not disagreement. I am sorry if that was unclear.
BTW, my “liberal” ref was not a political party one. Nor an “American” one. Liberalism is a universal philosophical approach. And, of course, empiricism is a key to the scientific approach, particularly in the case of climate science, as dependent as it is on observation.
If, as you say, you are interested in the science and not the politics, that, in and of itself, defines you as a liberal empiricist (openminded and observant of data), quite regardless of nationality or politics.
Alex: I got curious and started checking out South African stats and am amazed at how much different sources contradict each other. Some claim pop is as high as 49.7 mil. and rising. Others (incl. the US CIA) claim it as under 44 mil. and declining by half a percent/year. It’s all very confusing.
So I’ll take your word on it. (But offhand would you know any reason for the large variations in the reported numbers?)
Hmm now that’s a different explanation, never looked at it that way! I see, now i understand, thanks
“Dr. Hansen if you are reading can you kindly point out where in the time-line the crimes occurred and tipping points are?”
I’m not sure about crimes and tipping points, but the graph shows that the majority of points above the blue line occurred after 1998. I understand this to mean that average global temperatures post-1998 are not only higher, but more consistently higher, than average global temperatures pre-1998.
And yet many people insist that global warming stopped in 1998. How can this be?
[…] Σύμφωνα με το UAH MSU (πανεπιστήμιο της Αλαμπάμα), η αντικανονικότητα (μετάφραση του anomaly?) της παγκόσμιας θερμοκρασίας για τον Ιούνιο 2008 ήταν -0.11 °C, από -0.18 °C που ήταν για τον Μάιο 2008. Αυτό δείχνει ότι ο Ιούνιος 2008 ήταν ο τρίτος πιο κρύος μήνας από τις αρχές αυτού του αιώνα, μετά τον Μάιο 2008 και τον Ιούλιο 2004. (πηγή για το γράφημα) […]
Alex: You have the right idea. Check it out, decide for yourself, keep an open mind. It’s the experts’ job (on both sides) to explain the basic theory. Yes, the theories themselves (ultimately) get technical, but they are easy enough to understand without a huge pile of numbers. Anyone (expert or not) who says different is blowing smoke.
It’s ALL of us who get to decide these issues in the end, directly or indirectly via our voting power. Scientists are our expert witnesses, but they don’t get to decide policy–they only get one vote each just like the rest of us.
Ah I see!! Diverse figures there…well according to South African census the current population stands at 47.9 million as of 2007…
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm
That is impossible as i clearly remember that an earlier census declared it to be around 45/46million and around 2004 when there was mass media portrayal of South Africa’s “ten years of democracy” and how many people were now in the nation. While numbers may vary slightly the pop is definately no less than 46million. While we do have high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates and migration, there has been a general increase in standard of living for people who were previously confined to rural areas pre-1994. Given that population pyramids show us that we are a “second world” developing country , it means that the population will increase but the increase will begin to slow down soon as costs of living will begin to rise due to our electricity and water crisises not meeting increasing demand…the AIDS infection rate has also dropped slightly. It is interesting to see such figures…it depends because there is largely negative growth among white minority population (migration) but there is a definite increase in the black majority. From a eye-level point of view the city I currently live in is expanding at a high rate, both high and low income government and private housing estates are booming with complexes dotting previously bushy areas. Generally as foreign investment is growing due to the 2010 world cup the population will increase as more shopping malls are being built. Come to think about it it is actually frighteneing how fast SA is growing considering our fuel and water crises.
True but policies aren’t usually designed on facts! Unfortunately science and politics cannot agree on certain things…the more i read about it the more complex it becomes although the general motives/ideas are clearly visible.
I think the reason is that ceratin sources may account for certain parts of the population although that is unlikely…or maybe they just haven’t updated their stats! Perhaps they used the 2001 census numbers or even the 1996 census! The 2007 estimate is “relatively” new and the next census is planned for 2011. But since each successive census shows a higher number it would surely indicate growth? According to stats SA there has been growth since 2001…we will only know for sure in the 2011 census.
I don’t know the exact status of the population growth but from what I know and from what i have been told it is increasing… I find that US CIA stat interesting…Do they mention reasons for decrease?? Do they say which demographic/racial/age group is decreasing?
[…] full graphs can be seen at Whats Up With That and back up what some enlightened scientists are saying when they tell us that we’re actually […]
A little off the topic but still of relevance: Here’s an interseting little bit of random information which I have discovered.
Recently Wikipedia has been accused of bias on climate change and also accused of promoting a one-sided argument, praising climate hysteria. Tragic,,, but if we search “Sun” here’s what we see in the first paragraph:
“Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight and heat, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth’s climate and weather.”
Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen! Wikipedia THEMSELVES acknowledge the sun as the driver of climate! 😀
And here we were thinking that Wikipedia is biased! Well that’s definately an interesting point to note 🙂
[…] J. The claim that we “must act now” are misleading because it implies temperatures are rising at a dangerous rate. In fact, global temperatures since 1998 have not passed that 1998 peak, and early 2008 global average temperatures are marginally less than the equivalent period of 1988 (repeating: 1988, not 1998). [7], […]
Alex, now that you have pointed it out I wonder how long it will take for the wikis to adjust the paragraph?
You are doing a Regression with 2 values? ROTFLMAOBTC!