FORA.tv

The Smart Network

Scientist Jim Hansen Talks Climate Change

City Arts & Lectures
Rate It
7,996 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More

dleviwing Avatar
dleviwing
Posts: 4
Posted: 06.05.09, 03:40 PM
Where is the data that demonstrates this opinion?
mvanveen Avatar
mvanveen
Posts: 4
Posted: 06.08.09, 12:41 PM
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...
nextprevious Avatar
nextprevious
Posts: 8
Posted: 06.08.09, 03:28 PM
Mvanveen makes a good point.
terrysabo Avatar
terrysabo
Posts: 1
Posted: 06.17.09, 12:12 PM
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?
superSpok2009 Avatar
superSpok2009
Posts: 1
Posted: 06.19.09, 06:04 PM
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.
fabthegerm Avatar
fabthegerm
Posts: 1
Posted: 07.08.09, 03:30 PM
@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 COČ-level rises. At no point. COČ 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.
wscparks Avatar
wscparks
Posts: 5
Posted: 09.28.09, 12:44 AM
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
rspawn Avatar
rspawn
Posts: 6
Posted: 10.11.09, 09:00 AM
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.
Please log in or register to post a comment.