Actually, the city of Amsterdam was supposed to be completely submerged by 2003. How is that working out? Also, the arctic was supposed to be completely free of sea ice, how is that one working out for you? Global warming was supposed to decrease sea ice, and it is actually increasing in the antarctic. How is that working out? The Earth's climate system is dynamic and the temp is constantly heating or cooling regardless of human activity. You can make a statement that the Earth will be hotter or cooler in the future and you have 50% chance of being correct, so excuse me if I am not impressed with Hansen because all he did was accurately call a coin flip once. As far as the magnitude of the warming, every single model predicted a considerably hotter planet than reality. The fact that every model overstated the amount of warming that would occur indicates a clear bias by a bunch frauds who are more interested in securing their next income stream and have no interest in science. Do yourself a favor and research positive and negative feedback loops and find out how the relate to MMGW, because your previous statements about CO2 are total rubbish.
No the Arctic was not supposed to be ice free. Antarctic ice mass is rapidly decreasing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The rising levels of it HAVE to cause global warming. You are very deluded. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
Why even read your post when you start off with a flat out lie. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html "A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years." Get a freakin clue dude, because you have no idea what you are talking about. You ought to shut your mouth, open your ears, and pay attention. Maybe you will do a little better next time.
Why climate deniers are so afraid of Obama now One of the hallmarks of conservative commentary over the past few years has been the impressive ability of right-wing pundits to adhere to several different and contradictory caricatures of President Obama without suffering the slightest hint of cognitive dissonance. To the conservative mind, the president can be, depending on the situation, a bumbling dupe who is completely outmatched by the demands of the office (see: any foreign policy issue), or he can be a brilliantly devious schemer who delicately manipulates the machinery of government to achieve his nefarious ends (see: the IRS scandal). He can be a bloodless monster who will sacrifice lives to protect himself politically (see: Benghazi), or an overly sensitive softie (see: this stupid column). If you’ve been paying attention to some of the commentary over the past month or so, you’ve probably hit upon another caricature: Obama the checked-out, disengaged pseudo-president who does nothing but vacation and play golf “while the world burns.” Late last month, the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis wrote a column arguing that Obama “seems to be prematurely packing his bags in hopes for an early departure.” Fox News even conducted a poll asking respondents: “Do you think Barack Obama wants to be president anymore?” (41 percent said “no.”) Well, Obama’s vacation has come to an end, and he’s transitioned from a golf-crazy layabout who doesn’t even want to preside over the nation into a tyrannical pseudo-king who is ramming his socialist policies down the national gullet. The socialist tyranny in question is “a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions,” as reported by the New York Times. Conservatives, who tend to believe that climate change is a scam and international cooperation undermines “American Exceptionalism,” lost their minds. “Obama’s Lawless, Heartless Climate Treaty,” was the headline at Commentary. “Obama’s new power grab: A climate change treaty without Senate ratification,” screamed Hot Air. The accusations of “lawlessness” come from the novel approach the administration has to take in order to make progress on climate policy independently of Republicans in Congress. When it comes to slowing or reversing the impact of climate change, nothing can be done without the United States taking the lead role. The entire world realizes this, but, according to the Times, they also know that the U.S. will never ratify any sort of binding treaty on climate change because doing so would require a supermajority of the U.S. Senate, where there are more than enough Republicans to make sure that never happens: “There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubania, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.” So congratulations, Senate Republicans: the planet-destroying obstructionism you practice out of obeisance to the petroleum industry is the stuff of global renown. The argument that Obama’s climate agreement is “lawless” isn’t quite accurate. Per the Times, the plan is to update an existing treaty from 1992 and secure “voluntary pledges” from other nations, thus (in the White House’s view) obviating the need for Senate action. And as Newsweek explains, there is actually a heretofore unutilized section of the Clean Air Act that allows the U.S. to enter into precisely such agreements, and without the approval of Congress. But, as Steve Benen points out, U.S. participation in any such agreement would be dependent entirely upon who is sitting in the Oval Office. “The obvious policy downside – aside from all the congressional complaining – is that a long-term climate policy would no doubt be undone the next time there’s a Republican president in the White House.” And there’s no guarantee that an agreement of any kind will coalesce, as this is all still very much in the preliminary phase. The people who insist upon calling this a “power grab” are actually missing the point – this is the administration opting for weaker policy options because the problem is too important to leave unresolved, and something is better than nothing. “Such an accord would likely fall short of the deep emissions cuts needed to stave off the planet’s warming by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) over pre-industrial levels—the ceiling that world leaders agreed to in Copenhagan in 2009,” writes Rebecca Leber at the New Republic. To craft any sort of policy with teeth, the Republicans would have to reverse course on climate change and become constructive agents of governance. And that’s just not going to happen. But, for the person who thinks that Obama does nothing “while the world burns,” here he is doing something to address the actual increase in temperature of the actual world. Simon Maloy
One In Four Republicans Say Global Warming Is ‘Major Threat’ To U.S. 3 hours ago One in four Republicans say global warming is a major threat to the U.S. in a new Pew research survey, and more Democrats are concerned about its threat than that of terrorist groups, ISIS or nuclear war. Asked if they perceive global warming as a “major threat,” 25 percent of Republicans said yes in the survey of 1,501 adults conducted last week. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats also said it’s a major threat.
Written another way Three In Four Republicans Say Global Warming Is ‘A Fucking Sham’. As for Democrats thinking Global Warming is more dangerous than ISIS or nuclear war, well that speaks volumes. I also find it funny that the headline speaks to 1 in 4 Republicans thinking Global Warming is a major threat, but almost 1 in 3 Democrats think it's not a major threat.
Look. We all know you are an idiot, but do you even know the difference between sea ice and total ice mass? Because it is total ice mass that actually matters. And that is rapidly going down. Not as low as your IQ but getting there.
As far as an ice free arctic, yes one guy said it MIGHT be at this time. Most ice scientists did not say that. And the IPCC actually underestimated the ice loss rate.
Yes, that you think them wrong speaks volumes............... about how stupid YOU are. Yes nuclear war -IF it happens - could be worse, but it probably won't happen. Catastrophic climate change definitely will happen. ISIS will certainly not be worse than the coming global warming. If you think they will be,then you are an idiot.
Excellent article, much too long to post here: As Louisiana Sinks And Sea Levels Rise, The State Is Drowning. Fast. In just 80 years, some 2,000 square miles of its coastal landscape have turned to open water, wiping places off maps, bringing the Gulf of Mexico to the back door of New Orleans and posing a lethal threat to an energy and shipping corridor vital to the nation’s economy. And it’s going to get worse, even quicker. more . . .