Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Storms of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen
Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 23:34 GMT le 26 juillet 2010 +9
"Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" is NASA climate change scientist Dr. James Hansen's first book. Dr. Hansen is arguably the most visible and well-respected climate change scientist in the world, and has headed the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Dr. Hansen greatly raised awareness of the threat of global warming during his Congressional testimony during the record hot summer of 1988, and issued one of the first-ever climate model predictions of global warming (see an analysis here to see how his 1988 prediction did.) In 2009, Dr. Hansen was awarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."

Storms of My Grandchildren focuses on the key concepts of the science of climate change, told through Hansen's personal experiences as a key player in field's scientific advancements and political dramas over the past 40 years. Dr. Hansen's writing style is very straight-forward and understandable, and he clearly explains the scientific concepts involved in a friendly way that anyone with a high school level science education can understand. I did not find any scientific errors in his book. However, some of his explanations are too long-winded, and the book is probably too long, at 274 pages. Nevertheless, Storms of My Grandchildren is a must-read, due to the importance of the subject matter and who is writing it. Hansen is not a fancy writer. He comes across as a plain Iowan who happened to stumble into the field of climate change and discovered things he had to speak out about. And he does plenty of speaking out in his book.

James Hansen vs. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Hansen's book opens with an interesting chapter on his participation in four meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's cabinet-level Climate Task Force in 2001. It seems that the Bush Administration was prepared to let Dr. Hansen's views on climate change influence policy. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen, whom Hansen describes as "the dean of of global warming contrarians", was also present at the meetings. Dr.Lindzen was able to confuse the task force members enough so that they never took Dr. Hansen's views seriously. Hansen observes that "U.S. policies regarding carbon dioxide during the Bush-Cheney administration seem to have been based on, or at a minimum, congruent with, Lindzen's perspective." Hansen asserts that Lindzen was able to do this by acting more like a lawyer than a scientist: "He and other contrarians tend to act like lawyers defending a client, presenting only arguments that favor their client. This is in direct contradiction to...the scientific method." Hansen also comments that he asked Lindzen what he thought of the link between smoking and cancer, since Lindzen had been a witness for the tobacco industry decades earlier. Lindzen "began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analogous to his views of climate data."

Alarmism
Global warming contrarians often dismiss scientists such a Dr. Hansen as "alarmists" who concoct fearsome stories about climate change in order to get research funding. Dr. Lindzen made this accusation at Cheney's Climate Task Force in 2001. However, Dr. Hansen notes that "in 1981 I lost funding for research on the climate effects of carbon dioxide because the Energy Department was displeased with a paper, 'Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide,' I had published in Science magazine. The paper made a number of predictions for the 21st century, including 'opening of the fabled Northwest Passage', which the Energy Department considered to be alarmist but which have since proven to be accurate." If you read Dr. Hansen's book and listen to his lectures, it is clear that he is not an alarmist out to get more research funding by hyping the dangers of global warming. Hansen says in his book that "my basic nature nature is very placid, even comfortably stolid", and that nature comes through very clearly in Storms of My Grandchildren. Hansen's writings express a quiet determination to plainly set forth the scientific truth on climate change. He has surprisingly few angry words towards the politicians, lobbyists, and scientists intent on distorting the scientific truth.

The science of climate change
The bulk of Storms of My Grandchildren is devoted to explanations of the science of climate change. Hansen's greatest concern is disintegration of the gerat ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica causing sea level rise: "Once the ice sheets begin to rapidly disintegrate, sea level would be continuously changing for centuries. Coastal cities would become impractical to maintain." Hansen is concerned that evidence from past climate periods show that the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica can melt quickly, with large changes within a century. For example, sea level at the end of the most recent Ice Age, 13,000 - 14,000 years ago, rose at a rate of 3 - 5 meters (10 - 17 feet) per century for several centuries. Hansen is convinced that just a 1.7 -2°C warming, which would likely result if we stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm, would be a "disaster scenario" that would trigger rapid disintegration of the ice sheets and disastrous rises in sea level. Hansen advocates stabilizing CO2 at 350 ppm (we are currently at 390 ppm, with a rate of increase of 2 ppm per year.)

Another of Hansen's main concerns is the extinction of species. He notes that studies of more than 1,000 species of plants, animals, and insects have found an average migration rate towards the poles due to climate warming in the last half of the 20th century to be four miles per decade. "That is not fast enough. During the past thirty years the lines marking the regions in which a given average temperature prevails (isotherms) have been moving poleward at a rate of about thirty-five miles per decade. If greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade."

Hansen's other main concern is the release of large amounts of methane gas stored in sea-floor sediments in the form of methane hydrates. If ocean temperatures warm according to predictions, the higher temperatures at the sea floor may be enough to destabilize the methane hydrate sediments and release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 - 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Solutions to the climate change problem
Dr. Hansen is a controversial figure, since he has stepped outside his field of expertise and become an activist in promoting solutions to the climate change problem. He devotes a chapter called "An Honest, Effective Path" in the book to this. His main theme is that we need to tax fossil fuels using a "fee-and-dividend" approach. All of the tax money collected would be distributed uniformly to the public. This carbon tax would gradually rise, giving people time to adjust their lifestyle, choice of vehicle, home insulation, etc. Those who do better at reducing their fossil fuel use will receive more in the dividend than they will pay in the added costs of the products they buy. The approach is straightforward and does not require a large bureaucracy, but currently has little political support. Hansen is vehemently opposed to the approach that has the most political support, "Cap-and-trade": "Cap-and-trade is what governments and the people in alligator shoes (the lobbyists for special interests) are trying to foist on you. Whoops. As an objective scientist I should delete such personal opinions, to at least flag them. But I am sixty-eight years old, and I am fed up with the way things work in Washington." Hansen also promotes an overlooked type of nuclear power, "fast" reactors with liquid metal coolant that produce far less nuclear waste and are much more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors.

Quotes from the book
"Humanity treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the air, we move onto a steeper, even more slippery incline. We seem oblivious to the danger--unaware how close we may be to a situation in which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled into a torrential stream that hurls us over a precipice to our demise."

"In order for a democracy to function well, the public needs to be honestly informed. But the undue influence of special interests and government greenwash pose formidable barriers to a well-informed public. Without a well-informed public, humanity itself and all species on the planet are threatened."

"Of course by 2005 I was well aware that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had become an office of propaganda. In 2004, I learned that NASA press releases related to global warming were sent to the White House, where they were edited to appear less serious or discarded entirely."

"If we let special interests rule, my grandchildren and yours will pay the price."

"The role of money in our capitals is the biggest problem for democracy and for the planet."

"The problem with asking people to pledge to reduce their fossil fuel use is that even if lots of people do, one effect is reduced demand for fossil fuel and thus a lower price--making it easier for someone else to burn...it is necessary for people to reduce their emissions, but it is not sufficient if the government does not adopt policies that cause much of the fossil fuels to be left in the ground permanently."

"I have argued that it is time to 'draw a line in the sand' and demand no new coal plants."

"The present situation is analogous to that faced by Lincoln with slavery and Churchill with Nazism--the time for compromises and appeasement is over."

"Humans are beginning to hammer the climate system with a forcing more than an order of magnitude more powerful than the forcings that nature employed."

"Once ice sheet disintegration begins in earnest, our grandchildren will live the rest of their lives in a chaotic transition period."

"After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

"One suggestion I have for now: Support Bill McKibben and his organization 350.org. It is the most effective and responsible leadership in the public struggle for climate justice."

Commentary
James Hansen understands the Earth's climate as well as any person alive, and his concern about where our climate is headed makes Storms of My Grandchildren a must-read for everyone who cares about the world their grandchildren will inherit. Storms of My Grandchildren retails for $16.50 at Amazon.com. Dr. Hansen's web site is http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/.

Jeff Masters
  Permalink | A A A
Reader Comments
Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted
Viewing: 1401 - 1451

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147Blog Index

1401. NEwxguy 16:06 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Wow,some things never change,I sit in amazement over the same arguments and the same insults and the same people.
Member Since: 6 septembre 2007 Posts: 816 Comments: 13132
1403. SomeRandomTexan 16:07 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
1394. JFLORIDA 4:04 PM GMT on July 27, 2010
Yea i flagged them pat - they post some garbage article on pre industrial CO2 levels - dont even know thats its referencing and then make insults.



They are wasting everyones time.


And I guess you are the authority on who is wasting who's time. ;) Once again, flagging others post because they don't agree with you.
Member Since: 30 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1814
1405. MiamiHurricanes09 16:07 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting CybrTeddy:
I'm more interested in the Carolina's disturbance than the Antilles one personally as the models have been hinting a trough split a few days ago.
The wave near the Antilles is also about to confront 30 knots of wind shear along with a hefty amount of dry air. I don't see development of that feature until it enters a more moist environment. The disturbance by the Carolina's has much more favorable upper level conditions.
Member Since: 2 septembre 2009 Posts: 129 Comments: 19976
1406. Patrap 16:07 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111626
1407. PensacolaDoug 16:08 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Hey Nea you might want to get a new handle and staret over as you have no credibility here. You're comment about wanting to ship all of us off who don't agree with you shows you for the kind of person you truly are.
Member Since: 25 juillet 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
1408. ezcColony 16:08 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting Neapolitan:


I'll make this easy on you:

1) Only 0.1% of the signees of the petition have expertise in the climate sciences. (113 in atmospheric science, 39 in climatology, 341 in meteorology, 59 in astronomy, and 26 in astrophysics);

2) Time after time, random samples of names from the petition have been checked out, and appear to have been either made up, or some purer form of quackery. For instance, among the signers are an orthepedic surgeon, an architect, and many others for whom absolutely no other info is available;

3) The papers attachged to the petition were carefully designed to appear as peer-reviewed academic papers, when they were actually organs put out by known deniers and Big Oil/Big Tobacco. In the words of the National Academy of Sciences--the organization from whence the falsified documents pretended to emenate: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Next!!!


Your argument against the paper and its author, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen is based on who signed the petition?

Are you for real?!?!? LOL!!!!!
Member Since: 16 juin 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 28
1409. Michale 16:09 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting Neapolitan:


I'll make this easy on you:

1) Only 0.1% of the signees of the petition have expertise in the climate sciences. (113 in atmospheric science, 39 in climatology, 341 in meteorology, 59 in astronomy, and 26 in astrophysics)


If I am not mistaken, the guy who heads the UN's IPCCC or whatever it is, is an engineer with absolutely ZERO climate science bona fides..

Ya sure you want to go with this argument??
Member Since: 19 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 98
1410. myway 16:09 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
At some point one scientist must have started the man made GW belief. Odds are he or she was not thought of as respected as he or she was probably going against the grain of the established majority. Eventually many others jumped on board as research progressed which leads us to now.

So. It is possible that if the few scientists that do not back the man made claim, can come up with research to back their belief, the tide could turn the other way.

The debate will rage for decades.
Member Since: 28 mai 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 442
1411. Ossqss 16:09 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Interesting, with little tabs above the graphs.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wunderground.com#

This will probably be blanked out like the prior post from Goddard by the - mob.
Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154
1412. Patrap 16:10 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
One can flag posts all day,,but the system quantifies it by seeing if others flag it as well.

If one flags constantly..the system recognizes that and dismisses it.

That prevents one from Flagging the same person.

Its a "logic" based algorithm much more sophisticated than a lotta Humans here..


Easily.

We call it HAL.
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111626
1413. ACEhigh 16:10 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting SomeRandomTexan:

1388. hcubed 4:01 PM GMT on July 27, 2010
Quoting JFLORIDA:
"So I would like to see one article from a respected scientist verified in observation that disputes the base mechanism for AGW.

One."

And there is SOME of the problem.

Who really determines the "respect" of a scientist?

Who has the right to say which papers are valid or which publications are "respected"?
Action: Quote | Ignore User



well, duh! Didn't you know that the only respectable scientist are the ones who agree with GW. Tsk! Tsk!


The peer review process determines whether or not a scientist is respected. Most of the papers published by AGW deniers have been in journals outside the field of climatology, or in venues that are not even remotely scientific or credible such as industry funded think tanks.
Member Since: 19 avril 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 36
1415. GetReal 16:10 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting Ossqss:
Howdy, can someone tell me where Steve Goddard is wrong here on the historic GISS data manipulation? How about that smoothing that takes place? Oh, but the Satellites prior to 1980 were pretty good. Next we can discuss how the Sat's are calibrated and their accuracy now vs 1979 :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/26/giss-swiss-cheese/#more-22599

"Most Arctic stations used in GISTEMP are 1000 km (621 miles) or more away from the North Pole. That is about the distance from Chicago to Atlanta. Again would you use climate records from Atlanta to gauge what is happening in Chicago?

Note the area between Svalbard and the North Pole in the globe below. There is no data in the 250 km 1880-2009 trend map indicating that region has warmed significantly, yet GISS 1200 km 1880-2009 has it warming 2-4° C. Same story for northern Greenland, the Beaufort Sea, etc. There’s a lot of holes in the polar data that has been interpolated."





When you can't answer a point just censor it. That is alot easier to handle...
Member Since: 4 juillet 2005 Posts: 204 Comments: 8196
1416. PensacolaDoug 16:10 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
I suspect JFlorida and others of his ilk flag every poster they dont agree with. I could be wrong however.
Member Since: 25 juillet 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
1417. HarleyStormDude52 16:11 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting StormW:


Still gonna need oil.


LMAO again... and again!!!!! You go Doc!!!!!!!!!!
Member Since: 8 juillet 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 345
1419. Michale 16:11 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting ACEhigh:


The peer review process determines whether or not a scientist is respected. Most of the papers published by AGW deniers have been in journals outside the field of climatology, or in venues that are not even remotely scientific or credible such as industry funded think tanks.


The peer review process took a serious credibility hit with ClimateGate...
Member Since: 19 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 98
1420. Patrap 16:11 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting ACEhigh:


The peer review process determines whether or not a scientist is respected. Most of the papers published by AGW deniers have been in journals outside the field of climatology, or in venues that are not even remotely scientific or credible such as industry funded think tanks.


Shhhsssh,!!!!


Dont give away the scientific process.

It may disturb the lemurs.
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111626
1421. sailingallover 16:12 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting hcubed:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
"So I would like to see one article from a respected scientist verified in observation that disputes the base mechanism for AGW.

One."

And there is SOME of the problem.

Who really determines the "respect" of a scientist?

Who has the right to say which papers are valid or which publications are "respected"?

When I was little I wanted to be a scientist...
In college I was a physics/engineering major and took ALL the bio,chem,geo, and of course physics required courses through the first two years...

Then I saw how little money real scientist who did original research made and the kind of jobs they got. This was right before Carl Sagan( who is still wrong about everything) started making the doomsday scientist/politician a viable option for a "science" career...
Now I don't trust any "scientist" who publishes anything on controversial subjects which must have money thrown at them for grants or the earth is going to end......

Look at the title to the Book the blog is about..
Does that sound like a balanced impartial scientist talking?
Member Since: 1 septembre 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 982
1422. msgambler 16:12 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Wow Pat, Have a good day! Lord knows we dont need an invest right now, almost all the decent analysts have been run off by all the nonsense in here today. Well, your here but I'm sure they will run you off before long. Maybe it'll get better next year. Peace out!!!
Member Since: 27 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1120
1424. unf97 16:12 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting StormW:
Hot off the press!
Tropical Weather! (Go figure).

TROPICAL WEATHER SYNOPSIS JULY 27, 2010 ISSUED 12:05 P.M.


Thanks Storm and good afternoon to you sir! I appreciate your timely blog update and thanks for posting it!
Member Since: 25 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1193
1426. HarleyStormDude52 16:13 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting DestinJeff:


or flog them.



Where is the "flog" button?? Enhancement suggestion?
Member Since: 8 juillet 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 345
1430. WeatherNerdPR 16:14 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
What happened to the Yucatan Disturbance? And where did the Carolinas disturbance come from?
Member Since: 7 juillet 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5464
1431. Progster 16:15 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting JFLORIDA:


What EXACTLY does the free press article say - Its a jumbled mess. you call that reputable?


It was a joke. The article was written by Tim Ball.
Member Since: 4 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 412
1432. PensacolaDoug 16:15 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
So how many of mine have you flagged today?
Member Since: 25 juillet 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 4828
1433. SomeRandomTexan 16:15 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
1416. PensacolaDoug 4:10 PM GMT on July 27, 2010
I suspect JFlorida and others of his ilk flag every poster they dont agree with. I could be wrong however.
Action: Quote | Ignore User

You are not wrong...


Member Since: 30 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1814
1435. MiamiHurricanes09 16:16 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
The usual convective burst that always scares everyone because they look at the vorticity maps and surface analysis graphs and see an area of low pressure (when it truly is the Columbian low) is back!

Member Since: 2 septembre 2009 Posts: 129 Comments: 19976
1437. Neapolitan 16:17 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
Hey Nea you might want to get a new handle and staret over as you have no credibility here. You're comment about wanting to ship all of us off who don't agree with you shows you for the kind of person you truly are.


Let it go, PD; try to twist and warp what I said into something else if you wish, but the intelligent posters here--and there are some, I assure you--know darn good and well that I was merely wishing the "pollution is good for us!" crowd had a planet of their own to screw up so they'd stop endangering ours. So, absent any further fruitless ad hominem attacks, have you anything substantive to say about the issue of AGW?
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11174
1439. ACEhigh 16:18 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting sailingallover:

When I was little I wanted to be a scientist...
In college I was a physics/engineering major and took ALL the bio,chem,geo, and of course physics required courses through the first two years...

Then I saw how little money real scientist who did original research made and the kind of jobs they got. This was right before Carl Sagan( who is still wrong about everything) started making the doomsday scientist/politician a viable option for a "science" career...
Now I don't trust any "scientist" who publishes anything on controversial subjects which must have money thrown at them for grants or the earth is going to end......

Look at the title to the Book the blog is about..
Does that sound like a balanced impartial scientist talking?


Carl Sagan is "wrong about everything"?! Gee, here I was under the impression that he was one of the most respected astrophysicists of all time, and a man who has done more to raise the public understanding of science than perhaps any other person in history.
Member Since: 19 avril 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 36
1441. HarleyStormDude52 16:19 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting Neapolitan:


Let it go, PD; try to twist and warp what I said into something else if you wish, but the intelligent posters here--and there are some, I assure you--know darn good and well that I was merely wishing the "pollution is good for us!" crowd had a planet of their own to screw up so they'd stop endangering ours. So, absent any further fruitless ad hominem attacks, have you anything substantive to say about the issue of AGW?


ok.. I get GW.. what is AGW? sorry.. I accientally burnt down my mobile home last night while cooking possum inside and I think did some climate damage..
Member Since: 8 juillet 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 345
1442. Dodabear 16:19 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting StormW:


It got disturbed by the GW debate...and left!


One of the most reasonable posts here today!! Way to go Senior Chief!
Member Since: 28 juillet 2001 Posts: 0 Comments: 2234
1443. 7544 16:20 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
island blob just might be the next invest
Member Since: 6 mai 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5925
1444. MiamiHurricanes09 16:20 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting StormW:


It got disturbed by the GW debate...and left!
You would think that those disturbances would like global warming...but then again the comments were written on WU...everything on WU is overdone and scary when talking about GW...
Member Since: 2 septembre 2009 Posts: 129 Comments: 19976
1445. HarleyStormDude52 16:20 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting 7544:
island blob just might be the next invest


I sure hope so...
Member Since: 8 juillet 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 345
1447. Goldenblack 16:20 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Storm,

I am really glad you could put into words and statistics what the rest of us who are interested and study suspect about the condition of our hurricane season....(so many are "downcasting" without any knowledge of climatology, conditions, or what is evolving in the tropics)..Thanks!

Quoting StormW:
Hot off the press!
Tropical Weather! (Go figure).

TROPICAL WEATHER SYNOPSIS JULY 27, 2010 ISSUED 12:05 P.M.
Member Since: 28 juin 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 705
1448. CJ5 16:20 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting JFLORIDA:


an 1983 paper referenced by an article in the Canada free press???


A scientific study the draws debunks scientific studies that are being used to prop up CO2 levels and GW. That is one of many scientific studies available. How about find a source that debunks this scientific study?
Member Since: 4 juillet 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1709
1449. SomeRandomTexan 16:22 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Its called peer review - it that available in texas?

You dont even know what that article is talking aouut - neither does the writer so its fitting I guess.

Facebook is where your looking to be friend and is more your technical speed.


Get a life, are you serious???? I never asked how the system quantified flags, since I am a web-designer I believe I am familiar with this.

Thank you very much but I do not even have a Facebook account nor do I need one.

I am definetly not asking to be your friend either. I am just noting how amazing you are by being such a whiney baby to flag post that you do not agree with.

I am sure you will flag this one too!
Member Since: 30 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1814
1450. Neapolitan 16:22 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting StormW:


Still gonna need oil.


You know I respect you as a meteorologist, Strom, so believe me when I say I ask this in hopes of seeking a solid answer: you've posted the very same four-word response--"Still gonna need oil"--a number of times today. Is it your beliefe, then, that we should do nothing, and instead sit idly by while the BPs and Halliburtons of the world engorge themselves at everyone's expense? Or do you believe the smart course of action might be to at least consider alternatives?
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 11174
1451. Floodman 16:22 GMT le 27 juillet 2010    
Quoting SAINTHURRIFAN:
folks jf is a troll he only comes on here and posts when gw topic is posted.He is like stormtop he is here to antagonize, and be complete opposite.My dear mother always said instead of arguing with them or taking thier abuse simply just tell them i will pray for you.And maybe masters gets a rise at posting this crap just to see the arguments it will cause lol.If he does it works.


You know, people that say stuff like this confuse me...if you dislike his opinions so much, why do you keep reading them? I mean, don't get me wrong, I disagree with the doc from time to time but at least I recognize the fact that entries like this one are a reflection of his beliefs and opinions based on the science...Crap? Really?
Member Since: 2 août 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 9919

Viewing: 1401 - 1451

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147Blog Index

New Comment
Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.
Post Your Comments
Please sign in to post comments.
Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.
About JeffMasters
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather
Clear
60 ° F
Ciel dégagé
Community Activity