Jim Hansen has been at the center of the climate change debate since the early Eighties as both a prominent scientist and spokesman alerting the public to the threats and uncertainties of global climate change.
The head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen studies radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres related to global change on Earth.
He is currently an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
Bio
Jim Hansen
Jim Hansen has been at the center of the climate change debate since the early 1980s as both a prominent scientist and spokesman alerting the public to the threats and uncertainties of global climate change. The head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen studies radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres related to global change on Earth.
He is currently an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen's numerous awards include the Heinz Environment Award and the Dan David Prize. His public policy experience has been punctuated by Congressional hearings as well as his advocacy to reduce fossil fuel dependency. He has been instrumental in alerting the public to how science has been politicized in its translation to government policy.
In 2005, Hansen stated that NASA administrators restricted his ability to communicate directly with the public and censored his findings about the threats of global climate change. In a subsequent report, NASA's inspector general acknowledged the agency had marginalized and mischaracterized climate change science.
Hansen has written several books and numerous scientific papers on climate change and maintains that by dealing directly with the causes, we will benefit from cleaner air and water as well as growth of high-tech industries.
Mark Hertsgaard
Mark Hertsgaard, an independent journalist based in San Francisco, is the author of five books that have been translated into sixteen languages. He covers climate change for Vanity Fair, The Nation, Time and Die Zeit and has written for many of the world's leading newspapers and magazines.
Mark Hertsgaard is the author of five books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future and On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency.
A correspondent for Link TV and The Nation and L'espresso magazines, he has written for The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Time, The Guardian, Die Zeit and other leading publications around the world. His next book is called, Hot: Living Through the Storm: Surviving the Next 50 Years of Global Warming.
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.27.2 °F (1.84.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wscparks
30 years of satellite temperatures shows no real change
What an astonishing claim! On the contrary, the satellite record shows the same long-term trend as surface measurements and ocean measurements - rapid warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvanveen
If these models are no good, how can you, as a scientist, find a solid basis for your findings?
The basis for findings is research (that has been done in the past) - the models are for predicting the future.
What we do know is that reality is worse than the models have predicted so far, and that's a pretty solid basis for predicting disaster.
30 years of satellite temperatures shows no real change
And as other comments computer models are used to lies to us
Politicians and bureaucrats have their own agendas
e.g. the Australian ABC radio or TV never has the fare debate of both sides
about CO2 or climate change
@superSpok2009:
1. As Jim Hansen stated, there are almost no doubts concerning men's role in climate change among the scientific community at all (anymore) - that's part of what he called the "gap" between public and scientific knowledge.
(For further reading: http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects...t-human-caused )
2. At no point the IPCC (e.g.) states that life is not possible when CO²-level rises. At no point. CO² actually works as a natural fertilizer. All that is being said is that climate changes too quickly for some currently existing ecosystems to adapt adequatly.
@terrysabo:
In fact, there have never been fewer scientists expressing doubts concerning the fundamental science behind climate change.
And with regard to the common "global warming stopped"-argument: http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects...arming-stopped
FTA: "Short term trends are not significant indicators of climate but rather show short term variability within the long term climate trend."
There is a fundamental difference between weather and climate.
I thought this interview would contain useful information regarding many questions I have had about climate change. If only he had just talked about the clear doubts about man's true role in the matter.
I would have also liked the discussion regarding the previous history of climate change, specifically regarding the CO2 being much higher levels in the past during times in which life over all has flourished.
What would be enough proof to show that the climate change that is being talked about here is only weather cycles? Polar caps have increased in size tremendously in the last two years! Now we are being told that the cold winter was due to global warning. Why isn't this issue being debated by the science community as a whole. There are more scientist saying that gobal warning isn't true. Why are these lies about gobal warning still allowed to be stated as facts? Why not have both sides of this issue debated?
In the last minute he talks about climate models that are too sluggish.
If these models are no good, how can you, as a scientist, find a solid basis for your findings?
Of course you can suggest inductions from isolated cases, but how can you apply scenarios in an open and dynamic climate system while scenarios are only valid in fixed and closed systems that are characterized by scripts?
I understand computer models are closed systems with scripts, but if these are no good...