“The Oceans will begin to boil…” – yes he actually said that, along with some other silly things. Watch this video:
One wonders, if Dr. Hansen realizes that no scientist has yet presented any credible evidence that the “oceans boiled” millions of years ago when atmospheric CO2 values far exceeded the 390 ppm we have now. Of course, given that this is a “Climate Progress World” production, such inconvenient facts don’t matter, as its all about the scare.
Hansen apparently has Venus on the brain. Even normally alarmist Wikipedia doesn’t embrace Hansen’s “runaway greenhouse effect” on Earth.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
The situation on Earth is very different from that which existed on Venus, as any terrestrial runaway effect is not irreversible on geological timescales. Potential runaway greenhouse effects on Earth may involve the carbon cycle, but unlike Venus will not involve boiling of the oceans. Earth’s climate has swung repeatedly between warm periods and ice ages during its history. In the current climate the gain of the positive feedback effect from evaporating water is well below that which is required to boil away the oceans. Climate scientist John Houghton has written that “[there] is no possibility of [Venus’s] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth”.
h/t to WUWT reader “coldlynx”
R. Gates.
Wow, really?
You will deny him three times before the cock crows.
Why the oceans won’t boil away… http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm
I just listened to the “oceans will begin to boil” part…he first said “…the oceans will begin to evaporate…” then said “…the oceans will begin to boil…” followed by “the oceans will end up in the atmosphere…”.
I really don’t know if the adjective “unhinged” is adequate here…does he understand anything about atmospheric heat transfer or thermodynamics??
The claim that a greenhouse earth would be permanent is absurd. If that was the case, and CO2 could trigger it, then it would have happened already and we would not be here. But then, real climate history never tempered his ramblings before, so why now.
Meanwhile Obama wants to downsize the Dept. of Commerce. This will probably result in more support for biased science and keep the Lisa Jackson train going. The farm sector was right to get farm dust protected from EPA ahead of the hit list agenda.
At least he admits that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. ;->
@ur momisugly hunter “he is not some outlier of climate science. He is their guy. He is their spokesman. He is the main reason climate science has grown to the successful and lucrative enterprise it is.
Think about the implications of that.”
Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Hansen is a spokesman because he is saying (whether he sincerely believes it or not) exactly what some very influential people in government, business and media wish him to say, and are willing to pay him in money, in publicity and in honors. 95% of the people who read this are probably sceptics on climate and will agree with the previous sentence. Remember that the same people who would willingly lie to us about CAGW are the same people who inform us about foreign policy, about which nations threaten us or support us, about what economic actions will benefit us, about what is needed to keep our nation free and prosperous.
Scarey realization, but the same people who lie to us about climate will lie to us about anything.
I posted this storey on a local blog I participate in. When I challenged an alarmist to show anyone who agreed with Hansen he said this.
“Feel free to show any credible climate scientist who argues that humans should continue to rapidly increase our greenhouse emissions, and also hope for huge releases of methane from thawing permafrost, etc sources in the future.”
I thought since it’s Friday, everyone could use a laugh.
Ask him to show you how it is even possible for humans to prevent nature from releasing the methane all on its own as it has done so when no humans were aroung to influence it.
According to James Hansen it will be too late at the end of this year, unless dramatic action is taken on greenhouse gases.
And it was Rasool and S. H. Schneider who used James Hansen’s models in 1971 to predict an impending ice age. Why should we trust his models now?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
By my count in the entire 5 minutes plus of babbling he only said two things that weren’t complete nonsense.
1) Water is a much more powerful influence on the climate than CO2.
2) There is no chance of transferring life off the planet in any foreseeable future
The rest of it is farcical manure. Boiling oceans, the Antarctic icecap disappearing within a century even though he seems to think it is 2 miles thick, unlike the entire rest of the world, which AFAIK has always had the number at 1 mile+/-, and the majority of the continent doesn’t come within a Tebow miracle touchdown pass of the melting point of ice even as a summer maximum.
Re: R. Gates:
Definition of UNHINGED: upset, unglued
Related to UNHINGED
Synonyms: balmy, barmy [chiefly British], bats, batty, bedlam, bonkers, brainsick, bughouse [slang], certifiable, crackbrained, cracked, crackers, crackpot, cranky [dialect], crazed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, demented, deranged, fruity [slang], gaga, haywire, kooky (also kookie), loco [slang], loony (also looney), loony tunes (or looney tunes), lunatic, mad, maniacal (also maniac), mental, meshuga (or meshugge also meshugah or meshuggah), moonstruck, non compos mentis, nuts, nutty, psycho, psychotic, scatty [chiefly British], screwy, unbalanced, insane, unsound, wacko (also whacko), wacky (also whacky), wud [chiefly Scottish]
Although I wouldn’t go so far as to declare that he is psychotic or insane the definition and the rest of the extensive list of synonyms seem completely appropriate.
What makes me increasingly angry and resentful is that, despite this clown’s continual spouting of similarly reasoned doom mongering, I enjoy the privilege of equally continual declarations by this dolt and his numerous sycophants that, because I don’t find his blatherings completely convincing, I’m the one who must of necessity be a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging moron or alternately the functional equivalent of all the worst Bond movie villains all wrapped up in one.
“”Jason Calley says:
January 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Remember that the same people who would willingly lie to us about CAGW are the same people who inform us about foreign policy, about which nations threaten us or support us, about what economic actions will benefit us, about what is needed to keep our nation free and prosperous.
Scarey realization, but the same people who lie to us about climate will lie to us about anything””.
Another scarey realisation, the same people who lie to us about climate will lie to us about different reasons for it, when their original reasons are proved false. The big methane push is already on. Check Realclimate out the last few days, check the evolving MSM climate news. NASA is proving to be thick and furious in the mix.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fourteen-steps-to-reduce-global-warming-20120113-1py4o.html
LOL, Lucey Skywalker reminded me of my favorite Spaceballs quote.
Appologies to Spaceballs:
Barf: [Dr. Hansen roars by them, in a plaid colouration of speed] Aah!
Barf: What the hell was that?
Lonestar: Dr. Hansen
Barf: He’s gone to plaid!
DCA says:
January 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm
I posted this storey on a local blog I participate in. When I challenged an alarmist to show anyone who agreed with Hansen he said this.
“Feel free to show any credible climate scientist who argues that humans should continue to rapidly increase our greenhouse emissions, and also hope for huge releases of methane from thawing permafrost, etc sources in the future.”
I thought since it’s Friday, everyone could use a laugh.
————————————————-
I would respond that I know of at least 31,000 plus scientist with over 9,000 PHD’s who consider that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere not harmful, and most likely beneficial, and then link the Oregon petition.
Where’s his cool “Raiders of the Lost Arc” hat? Did a violent, climate-induced tornado blow it away?
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/396/223/James%20Hansen%20Arrested.jpg
@ur momisugly Marcus “Another scarey realisation, the same people who lie to us about climate will lie to us about different reasons for it, when their original reasons are proved false. ”
Very true! And a LOT (though probably not all) of the CAGW enthusiasts will accept it, and say, “Well, sure, we were a little confused about the CO2 thing, but THIS time we are certain and only a father-raping-mother-stabber could disagree!”
Well, that explains why we don’t have any Venusian butterflies.
Number 2 is also complete nonsense. Human life was transferred off the planet to Luna/the Moon a number of times already in brief visits 42 years ago and less. Life has been transferred off this planet for longer periods of time to temporary habitats in NEO (Near earth orbit) for similar periods of time.
The United States canceled the space program manned missions to Mars being planned in the 1960s to 1970s and scheduled to occur by 1987. The ability existed, but the political will was lacking.
Human colonization of the asteroids in the outer Solar System has the potential to support more human civilization and larger economies than currently exist on the Earth. Mining of just Ceres alone can create a habitat with more arable land and more fresh water than currently exist on the Earth’s continents at present.
Human life is destined sooner than later to become extinct on the Earth. Human civilization in the outer Solar System has no inevitable time for extinction, unlike such himan civilizations on the Earth.
Humanity has a very clearcut choice. Humanity can either do whatever is necessary to establish viable and permanent colonies in the outer Solar System before catastrophes destroy the current civilization and its capacity for space travel, or humanity can choose to confine itself only to the Earth and become extinct as catastrophes, natural and/or unnatural, destroy the Earth’s human-friendly environment by large impact events and other natural occurrences.
If humanity chooses adapatation and survival among the asteroids and other habitats in the outer Solar System, humanity will then have the capability for interstellar colonization among the hundreds of billions of planets and far more asteroids in this galaxxy alone, even if the only mode of travel is by multi-generation transits by permanent aasteroidal colonies.
The permanent habitation of the first asteroid as a scientific outpost is feasible with current technologies, and it can be accomplihsed within one or more decades. The first viable and permanent human colony in an asteroid is quite feasible in the next half century. Once a small manufacturing facility with self-sustaining food and energy production is well established in the outer Solar System, the whole human presence in the outer Solar System can mushroom in size in a very short time. It is far more costly to transport raw material and finished goods out of and into a gravity well than it is between non-planetary locations in the Solar System. Consequently, you avoid gravity wells and planets until and unless you can take advantage of their gravity ofr course corrections and gravity acceleration in hyperbolic trajectories. The largest problem facing human space travel is traveling in and out of the gravity wells, which demand tremendous energy resources. Human civilizatons who live outside those gravity wells need not pay the exporbitant costs for transport of mass out of those gravity wells.
Although the costs and difficulties associated with establishing extraterrestrial colonies are not to be underestimated given the unprecedented scope of the challenges involved, neither is the true capability of humanity to do so to be irrationally denied.
NASA = “Not About Space Anymore”
D. Patterson says:
January 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm
The United States canceled the space program manned missions to Mars being planned in the 1960s to 1970s and scheduled to occur by 1987.
The money was siphoned off to pay for “near earth” studies, which have formed the basis for the alarm over GHG.
markus says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Check Realclimate out the last few days,
The cult of RC has Hansen as its godhead with Gavin at His right hand.
Maverick says:
January 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm
A question for NostraHansen – How much “train of death” coal does it take to boil an ocean?
Having gotten prosperous off an industrialized west built on coal, NostraHansen would now deny those sames benefits to the rest of the world to protect his grandchildren. Selfish does not begin to describe the crime against humanity perpetrated in the name of CO2.
I have a pretty good ‘people reader’ and a very good ‘BS detector’. I wouldn’t by a car from this guy…
IMHO, he has a ‘tell’. Just before he tells a ‘whopper’ there is a little ‘microexpression’ of a smirk. Mostly on the lips as a slight smile, but a bit in the eyes too. (Contrast it with the placid that comes on as he does the math for F / C conversion…) It just causes my BS-O-Meter to peg…
A couple of things I noticed. Hansen mentioned that a differential in temperatures (polar to tropics) is required to create major storm activity. So he *has* been listening to sceptics who have pointed out that warming at the poles will reduce the temperature differential. Of course, his cause for polar cooling is ice melting. So warming will generate melting which will cause cooling. All right then … I got that Jimmy. :-0!
Secondly, with all the extra water vapour in the air we get runaway warming. I can’t find the reference but a I recall one scientist (wrote a paper?) suggesting that C02 warming leading to evaporation leads to additional clouds (tropical and temperate) which leads to sudden cooling leading to invoking an ice age. Thus *his* reasoning for controlling C02 output. He and Jimmy could go all gladiatorial to debate it :).
E.M.Smith says:
January 13, 2012 at 9:22 pm
I have a pretty good ‘people reader’ and a very good ‘BS detector’. I wouldn’t by a car from this guy…
IMHO, he has a ‘tell’. Just before he tells a ‘whopper’ there is a little ‘microexpression’ of a smirk. Mostly on the lips as a slight smile, but a bit in the eyes too. (Contrast it with the placid that comes on as he does the math for F / C conversion…) It just causes my BS-O-Meter to peg…
Amazing, isn’t it. Where R. Gates sees no unhinging, i.e. nothing “out of the ordinary”, I see complete and utter unreality propelled by smirky arrogance…let’s just say “phoney”. I bet if you showed this to young children, they would cry, or at least wonder why “that man” is so “sneaky”. Their ability to detect emotional turmoil is enhanced due to an absence of cynicism. I find Hansen quite simply unconvincing: because, if he were telling a credible tale, he would do so in the absence of all the facial contortions.