Is Nasa's James Hansen right about climate change this time, unlike his global cooling predictions in the 70's

Question

He is scientific advisor to Big Al Gore.

Does this make him more bureaucrat than scientist?

Is he making any money off of his conclusions?

Is he as credible as his climate modeling?

Answer 1

What global cooling predictions in the 70's?  Unless you can provide a link to support your assertion that James Hansen made any global cooling predictions in the 70's, I will have to assume that you are simply misinformed.

Edit:

lol, a claim in a blog is NOT evidence. I'm still waiting for your link that shows James Hansen (or his modeling software) made any global cooling predictions in the 70's.  Something published in a science journal, written by Hansen, or from NASA would be real evidence.

Here's a list of Hansen's publications. Perhaps you can identify the one from the 70's where he predicted global cooling?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhanse...

And here's a recent journal article (from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) where the myth about what scientists were really saying about global cooling in the 70's is debunked:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/1310...

Edit 2:

It's nice to see that you're doing some research, but sadly you still haven't provided any evidence that James Hansen ever predicted global cooling. I gave you Hansen's complete list of publications (interestingly enough, the name S.I. Rasool isn't on any of them), show me the one where he predicts a global cooling?  He was already publishing his own research in the 70's and none of it seems to agree with your assertion.

I've written 100's of thousands of lines of computer code in my career (including for both NASA and Chevron), but you sure the heck can't blame me for every statement anyone working in an organization that used some of my code makes.

Answer 2

I know there are at least three types of modeling. Two of which they use regularly. Chaotic, and standardize, the first is based on guessing (postulation), the other is based on predictable climatic behavior. The preference for alarmist is the chaotic system, they rearrange anomalies to suite their purpose. As far as writing binary code it means absolutely nothing, and is only represented by what you wish it to mean.Don't let terminology get get in the way logic, a favorite impasse of the alarmist.

Answer 3

No he is not credible.  When so-called scientists jump to conclusions without all the facts, then they are no longer a scientist but a PR person with an agenda.  Anyone that works for a politician is a bureaucrat.  It is good that Al Gore has at least someone that knows a little something, but the mere fact that it is money driven, compromises it to such an extreme that it turns out to not be science at all, but yellow journalism.  I have never read scientific analysis' with so many edits and such an immense filtering system, which is solely what the IPCC is all about.  Their recent report states that they must conform to the agenda of those that support them.  Seriously, that is what it all boils down to and they are adamant about that.  There is no good science in global warming any more and even though the sun rises and sets, the temperatures are the same as when I was a child; yet these alarmists are so determined to convince us that the sky is falling and the end of the world is 'OBVIOUS'?

If alarmists were lemmings, they would already be dead.  Sorry for not drinking the kool-aid.

Answer 4

NO

Answer 5

Surely by now it is clear to all.

Sell Global Cooling until not one buys it any more.

Then use the same charts , change a word, like cooling to warming and sell that idea until it stops selling.

Then change two words, "climate change" and continue selling.  Creating a transition back to "global cooling, and sell that again.

A perfect example of conservation, using the same things over and over again.

It has been going on for 30 years, at least.

Answer 6

Can't find a related reference to Hansen but several researchers were quoted in an article that appeared in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek:

Dr. Murray Mitchell, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

George Kukla, Columbia University

Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin

Dr. James D. McQuigg, NOAA Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment

From the article:

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. 'A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,' warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, 'because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.'"

Answer 7

BD:  This is the wrong way to go after Hansen since you are wrong about a couple of two key points:

1.  Hansen's contribution to Rasool's work was the Mie scattering calculations, not the climate modeling.  It says so in the references to Rasool and Schneider (1971).  As such, it was a very minor part of the paper, and not relevant to the climate modeling results.

2.  Rasool and Schneider basically goofed in their calculations of climate (which Hansen had no part in), assuming a distribution of aerosols incompatible with known aerosol distributions, even back then.  If you had taken the trouble to find the comment by Charlson et al. (Science, 1972) on the 1971 paper with the response from Rasool and Schneider, you would see that correctly distributing aerosols, even using those primitive models, showed that the forcing could be positive or negative, in other words, warming or cooling.  

So you've made a couple of very basic flawed assumptions and gotten some very basic facts wrong.  My guess is you got this from skeptic screed website and are regurgitating it.  Do you accept everything you read without critically evaluating it and checking sources to see if it's true?  Based on your effort here, it sure seems like you don't do a lot of background research.

Answer 8

Hansen made 3 predictions that span any where from slight cooling to an unbelievable rise in temperatures, and all graphs overlap slightly.

His followers use this graph to "prove" he's able to see into the future, while alert people see this as a cheap pallor trick as there is no way he could ever be wrong.