"Indiana James" Hansen on "Why I must speak out about climate change"

The behavior of the well educated people makes “wrong”, to being “right”. Hansen hat! No need to write irresponsible disrespectful comments. Comparing Hansen words with some of the comments here, Hansen is “right”. Because I lost the problem, Hansen Hat was the problem or what he was saying in video.
Hansen said:
“Climate change deniers argue that the sun is the main cause of the global warming…but the measured energy imbalanced during the deepest solar minimum in the record when the sun energy reaching the earth was least..”
So the reality:
Here come two ideas, because there must be somebody as RESPONSIBLE, or something as REASON:
1. Hansen says global warming is because of man activity (mainly fossil fuels)
2. The Deniers say the sun ( the nature) is the cause (WUWT had a post in this regard)
Apparently there are no differences between the two parties; CO2 is not the main battle field. THE CAUSE HUMAN or THE SUN is the problem. To reduce CO2, changing in any HUMAN activities means there would be extensive economics impacts, and for the SUN it’s easy, nobody is responsible for that and here apparently the cyclic solar activities is referred to as “natural”. The Deniers also say, recently trend to cold climate conditions is a fact, while the man activity never stopped but the SUN activities were reduced. The Deniers say the solar activities performance in global warming is %90; therefore the remained %10 as human activities does not make any sense, finally, MAN can go on using fossil fuels. This means no change in CO2 economy would be necessary, life goes on and SUN activities more likely to be considered as a DISASTER same as EARTHQUAKE, we cannot do anything.
The real quantity and performance of HUMAN/SUN in climate change, is the question. As long as this is not solved the PLANET would remain at high risk.

Ron Manley says:
March 26, 2012 at 12:21 am
“……….One example was the pair of graphs Hansen showed on ice loss according to the GRACE satellite. The ice losses of 200 Giga tons a year for Greenland and 130 Giga tons for the Antarctic seem impressive until you realise that at this rate Greeland’s ice wll last for another 13,500 years and the Antarctic’s for 200,000 years.”
The best way to fix things in science is to put a clear true end on the views where it’s possible. Hansen didn’t say anything about your point of view, but you made his said things clear in the shortest words as you could. Nothing aggressive found in your words, therefore it is understandable, acceptable and constructive even if there may be some incorrect figures (just as an example) then someone else may make it clear. This is the progressive way that science can make things solved.
The objection is not over the discussions, it is because of the way that we talk together.
It would be pity despite WUWT policies some people don’t do well in their comments. Talking about Hansen hat doesn’t bring us anything except someone gets permission not to respect WUWT.
Naming a scientist as “Indiana James” by WUWT doesn’t comply with its policies. WUWT is well respected public place that we know.

Of course there’s the risk that govenment won’t actually redistribute the money effectively.
There would be a small deadweight loss in admistering the policy.
But, the reality is that regulatory policy, tax policy, and economies of scale give the wealthy and high income people an advatange over the lower-middle and middle-middle class in saving and investing. Though this isn’t affected much the policy since the incentives apply to everyone, it does help a small bit since these expenses make up a much smaller part of higher income earners’ spending so the tax is unlikely to affect their decisions on personal consumption.
Business costs get passed on to the consumer, but the redistribution of the tax would cover almost all of that. What happens is an incentive to try to use less relative to others to make profit on the tax rebate.
The size of the tax is what matters, whether is affect true externalities. I do find is questionable that externalities are negetive, except in areas with high particulate matter in the air or lots of congestion.

Gail, excellent point on the pensions.

It is interesting that Hansen chose 50 years ago for his extreme event and drought comparison. That was during the mid-century pause or cooling. Why not 75 years ago during the dust bowl?

acckkii says:
March 26, 2012 at 8:36 am
kbray in california says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:47 am
_________________________
Thanks I’ll read it carefully.
________________________________________________________
I read it kbray in california and still would follow it.
Let me convey just simple part of that from Scafetta:
“Nicola Scafetta says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:50 am
Leif Svalgaard says: March 21, 2012 11:42 am
“There are things not worth discussing. All has already been said about this subject.”
_____
“Not really, Leif. The discussion just started.””
and from Willis Eschenbach:
“I find this to be parameter fitting on steroids, cyclomania taken to the extreme. It is nothing but using free parameters, which are justified as being kinda sorta close to astronomical cycles, to make the elephant wiggle his trunk.
In support of this, please note that Dr. Scafetta first got a reasonable fit to the earth’s temperature using just 20 and 60 year cycles. Then he got a reasonable fit using 9.1, “10-11″, 20 and 60 year cycles. Now he shows a reasonable fit using 9.98, 10.9, and 11.86 cycles … so … why should we think any of them are more than playing with parameters?
I leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether this is just trivial curve fitting. As for me, I see absolutely no scientific value in this at all. w.”
Really we are at the beginning as Scafetta said.
The issue I am tying to understand still is “global warming” reason if it’s the Sun. Dr. Hansen said the amount of solar activity per day is something about 400k atomic bombs to the scale of Hiroshima and 365 days a year. So both parties let’s say Hansen and Deniers, do agree with the energy receiving to Earth by the Sun. I’m sorry i don’t like to say Deniers, because they also strongly believe that the Sun is the main factor for global warming not human activity and Scafetta or the post you addressed me to follow, mainly is trying to find a cycle time for Sun behaviour. No prediction is possible due to uncertainty over the calculations through the discussion based on Scafetta, we are trying to guess something. Scafetta says it takes him at least 200 years to have the right data to somehow formulate the case for thousand years! The global warming is our today’s problem and we must make decisions now.
Historical events and the history itself do not show any serious climate changes, I’m not talking about Ice Ages just about regular years after all ages just like the age that we are living now , at least from 6000 years ago we don’t have any story about “global warming” like what we are talking about. What has changed by now? The Sun has been the Sun with all its components and events. The cyclic and all cosmic interactions still are the same. Newton’s attraction law is working. The only factor that did not exist in the past is human activity to the recent scales. I’m not going to argue on this position, but when we want to refer to hostorical events and even we discuss about Mammut and Ice Ages, how do we refer to what historical facts? We don’t have formula for that, we just have “stories based on existing facts”. Scafetta has not said anything yet, he has just started a discussion, still to come. Sometimes we forget that we are not at the start point of the planet in the year of 0000.

acckkii says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:01 pm
“The issue I am tying to understand still is “global warming” reason if it’s the Sun. ”
===========================================
You can watch this:

Difficult questions can be directed to those individuals on the other thread.
Have fun.

kbray in california says:
March 26, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Thanks, I did it kbray in Ca. I enjoyed the background music too. I played it several times with my piano!
Let’s see what do we have in our hands:
“The gravitational facts of other planets cause the ellipse of our orbit to slowly spin around the Sun. It takes about 112,000 years for the ellipse to revolve once relative to fix stars when considered together with two forms of perception add. And it takes about 21,000 years for the solstice to go from aphelion to aphelion. The dates of the perihelion and aphelion advanced each year on the Sun core an average of one day per 58 years.
The eccentricity of Earth orbit is a measure of how round or how oval shape is. Over thousands of years the eccentricity of orbit varies as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets primarily Jupiter and Saturn. The orbital eccentricity cycles with a period of 100,000 years.
As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves the semi major axis of orbital ellipse remains unchanged, so the length of the sidereal year remains unchanged.
As the earth travels in its orbit the duration of seasons depends on eccentricity of the orbit.
When the orbital eccentricity extreme, the seasons that occur on the far side of the orbit are substantially longer in duration. In addition the axial perception there’s the axial tilt. The angle of Earth rotational axis makes with its orbital plane. It’s currently about 23.4 degrees and is declining. This tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. It makes one complete tilt and back every 41,000 years. This changing tilt is directly related to Ice Ages on Earth. The last max tilt occurred in 8700 BC and the next min tilt will happen in 11,800 AD. The inclination of earth’s orbit drives up/down relative to the present orbit having a period of about 70,000 years. Orbit also moves relative to the orbit of other planets as well. By calculating the plane of unchanged total angular momentum of the solar system we can define the overall plane called the invariable plane. It is approximately the orbital plane of Jupiter. The inclination of earth‘s orbit has a 100,000 year cycle relative to the invariable plane. This 100.000 years cycle closely matches the 100,000 pattern of ice ages.
A year on earth is directly determined by all the various orbital motions of the earth. So if someone tells you how many years old they are, you might ask them is that sidereal, tropical or anomalous years. ”
As we see the system time scale is thousands years. Look: “The last max tilt occurred in 8700 BC and the next min tilt will happen in 11,800 AD.” Our friends are trying to define 10 to 60 years cycle time for overheating the Earth by the Sun that is a microscopic scale comparing to thousands years. We are in the years that The Sun is doing its regular cyclic activities. Our scientists don’t deny it neither Hansen nor The Opposition. This time I’m trying to understand that is the human responsible for global warming? I didn’t get anything from the other side. At least somebody should tell us CAN WE STILL DRIVE A 5500cc LUXURY CAR? If yes It means we confirm that there are no differences between man’s activity in the 21th century and the other centuries in terms of environmental issues.
I know some of the scientists/commentators who did not accept to write anything about Scafetta ‘s prediction or projections (whatever Scafetta likes to name it). This doesn’t mean that Scafetta is right/wrong, he said “it’s just the beginning”. He has lots of works to do.
I don’t know if Hansen didn’t start his global warming stories, then what the Deniers were going to do?

I thought it was Zahi Hawass, the former Minister of State for Antiquity Affairs in Egypt.

kbray in california says:
March 27, 2012 at 11:52 pm
__________________________
I have an opportunity to associate with you. I thank you for your attention. I know Willis very well. He is a pious and important scientist. He responded with caution in Scaftta theory. I am very willing that the good reasons for global warming due to solar activity is found. If not, the global economy will be faced with problem. While I believe the lowest result of Hansen’s theory was that the other energies also be active. Please see the link below. Issues will be discussed very responsibly:

Scientists should also be encouraged to communicate with people more. The following link is very interesting. Here you see how a Swedish scientist Hans Roling has succeeded in expressing his opinion that while Hansen is faced with problems.
http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2012/program/plenaries/panel.shtml
Best Wishes.

kbray in california says:
March 27, 2012 at 11:52 pm
_________________________
As you see , in this short time, I’ve done some works. Please rate what I did.
The Conference in New Delhi – India had important results. I wrote an article in this regard.
I went to Willis too as you recommended. There is an important issue under process that I like it very much, thank you. As usual there is so crowded.
While it is serious, but their contents finally result in specific end. Still they need to spend much time. They are really doing well.