What Compels Dr. James Hansen to Sound the Climate Change Warming Alarm?
Here’s eminent climate scientist James Hansen’s recent Ted Talk on global warming. I’m not sure there’s anything new here in terms of the data themselves: the imbalance of the Earth’s heat energy is 0.6 Watts/square meter, 20 times the rate of energy consumption by all 7.4 billion of us, the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima atom bombs exploding every day, 365 days per year. This is causing the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to melt at a rate of about 350 cubic kilometers per year (five trillion tons since 2002), meaning a rise in sea level of somewhere between 1 and 5 meters by the year 2100, as well as horrific levels of species extinction, desertification, etc.
The reason to watch the video, however, is not a rehash of everything you know about climate science; it’s the reason Dr. Hansen is on this mission. It’s worth a look, I promise.
‘Twas a good presentation and as scientifically accurate as possible. However, there is one thing that he should have explained and didn’t thereby giving comfort to climate change deniers.
He explained that CO2 reduces the amount of heat that the earth radiates. However, he did not explain why increasing CO2 does not equally reduce the amount of heat that earth receives. I shall attempt to deal with that omission.
The sun radiates energy over a very broad spectrum which includes long and short infrared radiation, light ranging from red to violet, and invisible radiation ranging upward from ultraviolet. A large portion of the energy that earth receives from the sun is in the visible light range. When visible light strikes earth, that which is not reflected is converted into heat and re-radiated as infrared radiation. CO2 has little effect on incoming visible light but it absorbs some of the infrared radiation which would otherwise escape, the amount depending on the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. The net effect is global warming. It may be that others could explain this better.
It should also be noted that Dr. James Hansen is a strong supporter of nuclear power and sees it as totally essential to combat global warming. A google search on “james hansen nuclear” will find articles of his which support that position; it will also find articles which oppose that position. Here is one of his statements which I found with the suggested google search:
“The science is crystal clear,’ Hansen said: We can’t afford to burn even the already known reserves of fossil fuel. And avoiding that, he said, will require a substantial increase in the use of nuclear power.”
@2GreenEnergy
The difference between Dr James Hansen and the average everyday ordinary person is that:-
– he understands the science of global climate change intimately as a respected member of an elite global group of scientists who also understand and contribute to the global climate change knowledge base; and,
– he also understands the absolutely critical global energy generation technology imperative and all that entails that all nations MUST embrace as the indisputable solution to the global climate change catastrophe unfolding at an alarming pace and so-far unchecked, and with no precise solution pathway yet enunciated;
On the other hand the average everyday ordinary person (you and me that is) has no real in-depth understanding of these two immutably intrinsic scientific truths, so by what fuzzy logic do many of us believe, entitles us to be invited to the table as constructive contributors or commentators to the future global energy generation science debate?
The implication from the above is clear: there is a massive gulf separating Dr James Hansen’s assessments on the subject of Climate Change and Global Energy Technology Imperatives we should be pursuing urgently through the adoption of clean; safe; low cost; abundant and energy dense molecular science generation technology, and the average everyday ordinary person (you and me) who have been totally overwhelmed and beguiled it seems by renewable energy technology hysteria globally to the exclusion of pursuing molecular science generation technologies.
Both camps can’t be right though!
This is not simply a hypothetical scientific brouhaha between peers in play though, and the Dr Hansen’s of the world now need to step up their level of agitation, and create a frenzy of fear in communities to force an about face in the global energy generation technology imperative debate.
The soft glove utterances by the experts have so far fallen on deaf ears.
Lawrence Coomber
Electric autonomous cars, electric semi-trucks, electric homes, and solar with pumped water storage and Li-ion battery storage – No problem, Elon Musk has it all figured out. Watch and learn.