At 3-4000 extra walrus deaths a year, it's going to take some time before the 200,000+ walrus population is in any danger. Meanwhile, you can hear the polar bears cheering. They already prowl the shorelines for walrus -- dead or alive -- and the extra carcasses will end up making them good and fat. Watch for locally exploding populations of polar bears, and a new workable natural equilibrium of polar bear and walrus populations.

Dr. Hansen comments that the current 1.5"/decade rate of sea level rise is double what it was 15 years ago, which itself is a doubling of what it was 100 years before that. Hmmm, interesting set of numbers. When one looks at the sea level graph in point #1 of Lord Moncton's 35 point rebuttal of "An Inconvenient Truth", one sees that the rate of 7"/century occuring over the last quarter of a century is the same rate that occured in the last half of the 19th century. Sooooo, which data to believe??

Dr. Hansen also mentions GRACE measurements of snow/ice mass changes in the Greenland ice sheet. But that comes with an astonishing lack of context. But it's not just Dr. Hansen, this occurs with a number of other alarmists and skeptics, and it's a disservice both to their causes and to independents like me that are hungry for solid information. What I mean is that Dr. Hansen provides a number for mass loss, and then there's this enormous silence. Something absolutely essential to his argument is missing, and that something is a simple statement about how physical event "X" can be indisputably proven to be caused by AGW. It simply isn't there (the same thing is happening with the low Arctic ice issue). This is not something that we can just take a person's word on. There has to be physical proof of one's position, whether alarmist or skeptic.

James "Super El Nino" Hansen seems to be unbounded by and uninterested in even the liberal policy report of the IPCC.

His claims about loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and sea level rise (up to 25 meters this century) are not supported by the IPCC report or any other accepted data. NASA data shows that the vast majority of both ice sheets never see any melting. NOAA's most recent long term predictions don't even call for any significant warming in Antarctica this century, and all evidence is that Antarctica is actually cooling this millenium.

He's "got his story and he's sticking to it." An admirable trait at some levels, but yelling fire in a crowded theater is immoral and destructive. His life's work and reputation is based on proving global warming threatens humanity, and he is also the keeper and manipulator of the temperature data. This is analogous to having a Bush partisan counting votes in the Florida 2000 presidential election. Skeptics will never trust or accept Hansen's data - because he has an overwhelming conflict of interest, and openly admits that he adjusts recent temperatures substantially upwards.

He claims to be oppressed by Bush, but hardly looks like Solzhenitsyn coming out of the gulag. As a political partisan, he needs to step down. It is illegal for civil servants to engage in political activities stemming from their work.

Revision to my post:

The graph in point #1 of Moncton shows that the 150 year average is 7"/century. The rate for the last quarter of a century and the last half of the 19th century is the same, but somewhat higher than 7"/year.

Also noticed this disparity between Dr. Hansen and Lord Moncton....

Katie quoting Dr H: "ice sheets could disintegrate and sea level rates could speed up even more...."

Lord Moncton: "the Greenland ice sheet rests in a depression in the bedrock created by its own weight, wherefore 'dynamical ice flow' is impossible...."

Barrow, Alaska is within one degree of breaking the low temperature record of -42F, and 73 degrees below their 1998 temperature on this day.

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=71.29,-156.77

Poor Dr. Hansen
He's lost so much traction he's having to stoop to giving youtube interviews.

Reply: what Youtube videos?

It is important that the people providing the temperature data - which is central to this debate - are seen as impartial. Hansen's history of global warming activism makes his consistently high temperature data suspect.

Last week Hansen declared 2007 to be the second warmest year ever. Final Met and UAH numbers will likely place it as the coldest year of this decade. These sort of discrepancies make it difficult to take him seriously.

Patrick Henry,

Come on, seriously, your posts generally show serious thought. Why do you keep mentioning Barrow weather? No reasonible AGWer is saying that cold temps are impossible. Just that they will happen less frequently.

Hi Guys,

Here is a list of only 400 of Hansen's colleagues that say he is flat wrong. I bet Mark, BT, Boris, Andrew and Steve B will say they don't have qualifications or are paid by BIG OIL. Hey they actually list what they do and degrees.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Mr. Hansen is correct; the earth is currently in a warming trend. Glacial ice is receding in the Northern hemisphere and the associated biodiversity is experiencing changes. All these items are facts that we can study, see and feel everyday. However, the deliberate leap to assign all the blame to greenhouse gases is not supported by scientific data. The industrial revolution occurred in the early 1900?s and we as a civilization have only added more people and greenhouse gas output since. So why did the earth cool down in the 1970?s? The reason is because the leading factor in global warming / cooling is the energy output of the sun. And strange how the sun is currently in a high output cycle. The sun's energy output correlates with the positive AND negative temperature changes over the past 100 years. The graph in Mr. Al Gore's film does not explain why the planet cooled in the 1970's while CO2 continually increased. Mr. Hansen has a political and financial reason to suggest the current global warming trends are due to greenhouse gases. What Mr. Hansen needs to do is go across the hall and talk with some of his NASA colleagues about Sun cycles. By-the-way, the sun's energy output will diminish over the coming decade as part of it's normal cycle.... so be ready for the next Global Cooling Scare around the year 2015. Mr. Hansen needs to remove the Sun bias from his global warming 'proof' in order to get a real picture of how greenhouse gases really change global temperature. The current doom and gloom is not supported by science.

A person with such views should definitely not be the keeper of world temps. There should be at least other auditors within NASA and only rural and sea surface data should be used also from 1880 to 2007. Examination of the NASA database as revealed numerous errors in presentation such as this
baker lake listed as 1946-2007 (but only goes to 2003)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719260005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
The UHA and other satellite data + radiosonde is definitely credible although there can also apparently be an UHI effect there as well. Anyway it wont matter anymore probably within 2-3 years when temps will be likely going minus for a few years and everybody will scrambling to say they never said this or that

Hansen and Monckton disagree about matters of science. The scientific credentials of Hansen are impeccable. Those of Monckton are, well, not as strong. The evidence in support of Hansen's statements is readily available to any who choose to look. Monckton's supporting evidence is, well, not as convincing.

ClaudeC would have us listen to Monckton and, in a different thread, the Pope.

I'll stick with science, facts, and Dr. Hansen.

BT,

Good to have you back!

I'll stick with science, facts, and Dr. Hansen.

Facts like the Hansen's 2006-2007 "Super El Nino" which would "flood California," and "25 meter sea level rise" this century?

"In Gore we Trust"

Dr. Hansen is a great man and a scientist. And you use against him Lord Moncton who is a right wing politician and thatcherite!! Ha-Ha. LOL. He knows nothing and says it with a loud voice to make him self look important. Phooey. because it is winter it is cold and, the farther north it is colder. And you are surprised? This amazes you? Of course it is very cold in the winter and also very warm in the summer. Watch the pendelum swing!

IMHO,
You have your choice of either of the three, but you can't have all three together.

(I am giving both the full and the compressed -- i.e. "Tiny URL" -- versions of each of the links below.)

Per Mr. Kearney's remarks a few posts above:

(1) There was not a cooling in the '70's. There was a mid-century cooling that ENDED in the '70's. This was largely due to aerosols and changes in patterns of land usage. Aerosols from the Mt. Pinnatubo (sp?) eruption also account for the brief downturn in the early '90's.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189

http://tinyurl.com/3cvo2l

(2) Solar activity has been studied with some care for many decades now, which is why they can conclude with as much certainty as science permits that solar activity cannot possibly account for current temperature rises.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://tinyurl.com/2mhgpb
___________

The list that Mr. Arndt mentioned has already been thoroughly discredited here:

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-inhofe-report-over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/

http://tinyurl.com/2mjav9

It is worth noting (and one can do so by back tracking the links in the above article) that these claims, and the people making them, have already been repeatedly debunked. One might also note that such lists are rather like the laughable nonsense manufactured by the Discovery Center: "400 scientists dispute Darwin/AGW/Copernicus/Gravity" etc.

FWIW, with 20,000+ climate scientists in the world, the odds that you could not find 2% of them expressing some form of disagreement ought to come as a surprise to no one. Glossing the link above, that list of 400 has been very substantially padded in order to inflate the numbers. So, in point of fact, this list does NOT present 400 scientists disputing AGW. It gives 400 names, no few of which are of people who have no qualifications to speak to these issues what-so-ever.

(I see in preview that my URL's were automatically converted to, well, URL's. My compliments to the folks that coded this stuff. I'm leaving the Tiny URL's in anyway.)

If we go back to medieval times with the Vikings, they were able to farm and easily travel by boat to Greenland! Which meant there was ALOT less ice back then and overall relatively warm temps, and I highly doubt we were driving cars back then.

Things changed obviously as the Earth headed into the little ice age and now we are cyclically changing out of that period so technically shouldn't it be moderating to a certain extent?

Plus can anyone explain how during the 1950's through 1970's the global temps were flat while we were in major industrial growth mode?

Also, with the possibility of slightly reduced sun radiation and a potentially strongest ever recorded la nina(As Joe Bastardi discussed), we could be heading back to an equilibrium point in the coming decades. I agree that the climate is changing, and perhaps warming, but I don't see a strong enough connection where humans have been a sole cause or even a moderate cause of global warming. Hence, changing our economy drastically to try to do something may just send us two steps backward.

BT, couple of points:

1) Steve McIntyre might have something to say about Hansen's transparency.
2) It is starting to appear that the people who are the most vocal about AGW, and getting all of the press are the real minority. For every Monckton there is an Al Gore or similar sycophant.

cmbclean,

Today was the coldest first day of winter ever on the north slope of Alaska, and it was 74 (seventy-four) degrees colder than 1998, which is Hansen's "warmest year ever in the history of the world."

Both the physical and the symbolic meaning should be fairly obvious. We have been bombarded with endless and insufferable propaganda how "massive polar warming is the canary in the coal mine." Looks like nature is taking a shot across Hansen's bow.

Wicked cold in Greenland -60F forecast every day this week.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076

Nearly as cold in Siberia.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/24688.html?MR=1

The really cold weather starts in January.

And just for fun - midsummer in Antarctica at -38F
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

Rastrelnikov,as a matter of fact I am surprised it is cold.With the temperature data Hansen puts out and massages higher I would think winter by now should be a thing in the past around here in southern New York state.The Walrus issue is probably just a matter of them ending up in the same spots by chance and has probably happened in the past though I doubt they have been studied much previously.Now with so much AGW hysteria around the Walrus issue is just another thing to blame on the AGW theory.

I am getting tired of hearing "if we don't act now, it will be too late, we are almost at the tipping point", as Hansen points out again. If these guys really bought into what they call science, they would truly believe we are past that point. Which brings me to my point, they keep bringing this up, because if it was past the "tipping point", all of their environmentalist solutions would not be bought into buy the public as easily. People would wonder, why should we bother, it's too late anyway. This is a tell tale sign of the AGW cult that this is only about future control and restrictions on our lives. Our climate is a large, complex system with large heat sinks(oceans)and are slow to react. They keep looking at our earth as a pot of hot water on the stove, in it's simplicity as a dynamic system and ability to control.

Chris, please see my post above, and the references to the mid-century cooling.

As for the "Greenland used to be Green" argument:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/22437/993

http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

In addition, you might want to cast an eye at this link to a temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere of the past 1000 years:

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

The two little bumps around 1000 and 1100 (along what I believe is the Moburg line) are the medieval warm period. This slight deviation compares rather strikingly with the contemporary rise in temps.

Re: Mr. Herstein's confidence in 'Climate Science'. As an engineer I took an interest in AGW about 9 months ago and have been reading papers, reviewing derivations, checking units and dimensions, wading through protocols, etc., even reading Dr. Hansen's fortran.
If Dr. Hansen's practice of the discipline (do not read 'Meterology') is at all representative of the standard then I find the term 'climate science' oxymoronic. If those leading academia do not reform the discipline and its practice of science, the death of GW will make a laughingstock of anyone who admits to membership.

LOL at the 400 scientists list:

Lindzen appear 4 times
Tim Ball 3 times
Freeman Dyson, 4 times
Ian Clark, 3 times
Ernst-Georg Beck- a BIOLOGIST, 3 times

What a sham. No hope for the people who buy into this garbage.

Gary Herstein,

At this month's AGU meeting, a paper was presented showing MWP plant matter recently exposed underneath a melting Greenland glacier. The inescapable conclusion being that Greenland glacial extent in the MWP was less than it is now.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22C13A-04%22

We also know that the Thames River in London froze over regularly during the LIA. Your hockey stick graph is not taken seriously by anyone anymore, including the IPCC. Here is a more realistic reconstruction which would better explain the very cold weather during the LIA which killed off the entire population of Greenland.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/humber19.gif

cmbclean,

You might also consider that the anomalous Arctic melt last summer was on the western side, which is starting out this winter in record cold. At -42F ice freezes up pretty thick.