Remember me
▼ Content

Are we really blowing up 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day?


Are we really blowing up 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day?08-10-2015 01:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Wow, I can't get enough of this guy James Hansen. Here's a video of him talking in March, 2015, at the Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference and Trade Show (I'd be scared to see what they put in their gift bags there):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8W_gs58ls

Check it out starting around time mark 1:00 where he talks about ARGO ocean temperature readings and how much energy we're adding to the planet's seas.

Now even though James Hansen only has a list of citations a mile long and has worked for NASA merely for decades and is considered by many to be the Godfather of climate change science, I have to admit that there is no reliable proof that he has ever worshiped at the alter of Karl Popper.

I like him anyways.


My hero testifying in front of congress in the 1980's.
Edited on 08-10-2015 01:17
08-10-2015 01:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
His book, Storms of my Grandchildren, is well worth a read. The machinations of the (second) Bush administration as it tried to shut him up are quite an eye-opener. It certainly makes a mockery of denier claims the climate scientists just say what governments tell them to say.
08-10-2015 01:38
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Yeah, he's had a pretty amazing journey and shed a lot of light on how this issue is being mishandled. In the above video he spends a bit of the back half talking about his belief that a tax on carbon-based energy which yielded a dividend to the public (people actually got the money instead of the government) could be used to solve climate change. I'm not quite sure I agree with him, but it is an interesting idea. It seems to give the incentive to the energy industry to not use carbon-based energy (the more they make, the more tax they pay), but it seems to give the public the incentive to use more energy (the more energy used, the more tax collected and the more dividend that individuals receive).

On the other side of the coin, I do agree with him that a cap and trade approach probably won't work.
08-10-2015 04:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
trafn wrote:In the above video he spends a bit of the back half talking about his belief that a tax on carbon-based energy


Of course, the grand objective of all the fear-mongering: Motivate the people to legitimize new taxes on themselves and to ruin their own economy "just to be safe."

There is no need nor reason for any new taxes. CO2 has no mystical, magical heat superpowers. There is no such thing as "climate", at least not in the body of science, that is "changing."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2015 04:21
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Obviously financial incentives will be necessary to inspire the changes needed to counteract man-made climate change. Cap-and-trade and fee-dividend concepts are worth considering, but they're probably not sufficiently developed yet to be effective financial models. Perhaps in time they will grow into, or give rise to matured fiduciary structures which will stimulate governments and people to work toward a carbon GHG neutral world.

(note to self: are financial models falsifiable?)
08-10-2015 16:47
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
There is no such thing as "climate", at least not in the body of science, that is "changing."


It is a well known fact that the Earth has gone through numerous climatic changes in the past. For example, we are not in an ice age now, but we know that there have been many ice ages in the past, as well as periods when the mean temperature on Earth was much warmer than it is now. The body of science dedicated to studing past changes in Earth's climate is known as palaeoclimatology, or paleoclimatology, depending on where you live.




Join the debate Are we really blowing up 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
'Leaders have a responsibility to tackle climate change,' McKenna says day after Kenney victory028-04-2019 21:17
Why CNN posts climate change articles every day, Fox News never do?112-03-2019 18:34
Day After Tomorrow defies physics718-02-2019 19:03
Big World Cup day today.408-07-2018 00:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact