Top Climate Scientist Says Heat Waves in Texas & Moscow Caused by Global Warming

The original NASA GISS Hansen, Sato, Ruedy paper:

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2012...

"Most scientists are careful not to link specific weather events to climate change trends, but NASA's James Hansen and two colleagues from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University have taken that plunge. They've gathered data they say shows that the 2011 Texas and Oklahoma heat wave—as well as a deadly Moscow heat in 2010—were "A CONSEQUENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE THEIR LIKELYHOOD WAS NEGIGIBLE PRIOR TO THE RECENT RAPID GLOBAL WARMING."

EMPHASIS ADDED.

Really? It was caused by global warming because 'it wouldn't have happened'?

What about all of the historical droughts in the Texas/Oklahoma area, say the 1930s?

The more Hansen speaks, the less credible he gets.

NASA GISS is far from the only scientific organization forecasting extreme drought ahead, and showing that the extreme droughts of the past few years are very consistent with predictions. Remember that severe drought has already doubled worldwide since the 1970s.

To see what we can expect, check out the animated global drought forecast map at the bottom of this page:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php...

Give it up already, you econuts aren't fooling anybody.

You're beating a dead horse.

Pure psychobabble and junk science designed to obtain more government grants to study and promote the global warming fraud.

Fellow Traveller wrote:

Pure psychobabble and junk science designed to obtain more government grants to study and promote the global warming fraud.

Did I just see a Texan deny rising drought?

"The cycle length is approximately 64 years, with maxima (wet) around 1918 and 1982 and a minimum (drought) in 1955."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research...

Earthling-1 wrote:

"The cycle length is approximately 64 years, with maxima (wet) around 1918 and 1982 and a minimum (drought) in 1955."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research...

The tree ring proxy study in my area, southern NM right next to Texas, showed the second most extreme drought in the last 1300 years to be from 1946 to 1961; the most extreme, the last 3 decades of the 13th centruy.

Looks like the graph presented agrees.

Northie wrote:

NASA GISS is far from the only scientific organization forecasting extreme drought ahead, and showing that the extreme droughts of the past few years are very consistent with predictions. Remember that severe drought has already doubled worldwide since the 1970s.
To see what we can expect, check out the animated global drought forecast map at the bottom of this page:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php...

No $%#* sherlock. Drought is something that is a part of the area in which I live.

In a good year, we get 8 inches of precipitation. Try to conceptualize that.

What causes rain? Moisture in the air. How does moisture get into the air?

Climate is a million piece puzzle of which we have only the edges and some of the middle. Until we can fill in all the empty spaces with credible information, we will be unable to understand just what's causing what we see.

Even then, we'll know, we won't control.

I see. So the fact that it hasn't rained lately in New Mexico means we should dismiss established scientific records of rising drought?

Random as always.

Fun Facts wrote:

The more Hansen speaks, the less credible he gets.

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” james hansen.

Northie wrote:

I see. So the fact that it hasn't rained lately in New Mexico means we should dismiss established scientific records of rising drought?
Random as always.

No. It means it has happened before, it will happen again. Nothing about our current climate is different from climates of the past and nothing about the impact of our current climate is any different from the impact of past climates.

We have periods of drought, we have periods of non-drought. We are in a time period of drought and most likely will have sustained droughts as long as the atlantic sends it's hurricanes/tropical storms up the east coast of North America.

Our droughts are not from temperature. It's just as hot during times of non drought as in the time of drought. Yes, when it rains and there are clouds the temps drop, but the sunny day does not have a different temp depending on the annual rainfall. And with an annual rate of precip at 8", there are more sunny days than cloudy days.

kal wrote:

<quoted text>“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” james hansen.

James Hansen is a trained scientist. He is also an activist. He has allowed his biases to dominate his science.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
James Hansen is a trained scientist. He is also an activist. He has allowed his biases to dominate his science.

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." James E. Hansen
(1998)

This science statement was utterly free of bias when published in 1998 by Dr Hansen. However, you, FF, are utterly free of science but full of bias.

You have lied again by posting "He has allowed his biases to dominate his science."

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>Did I just see a Texan deny rising drought?

Re-read. That's not what I said. Is it now? Hmmmmm?

sgtredbluered wrote:

Re-read. That's not what I said. Is it now? Hmmmmm?

Nauseous sees only what he wants to see.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Did I just see a Texan deny rising drought?

Yes, you did.

But, of course, he denies it.

One would think that the econuts who claim that they want to stop globull warming would be ecstatic that it doesn't exist, unless of course they're now more worried that they weren't able collect all the money they would have got if it actually was true.

Basically the econuts don't really care about "saving the planet", they just had their eyes on the green - green money that is.

Who wrote:

One would think that the econuts who claim that they want to stop globull warming would be ecstatic that it doesn't exist, unless of course they're now more worried that they weren't able collect all the money they would have got if it actually was true.
Basically the econuts don't really care about "saving the planet", they just had their eyes on the green - green money that is.

oh but 'who', we can still pull it off. we'll just print 'again' on our 'we survived the end of the world' t-shirts. besides, enough of the idiots bought your story the first three times, they will fall right back in line for the next prophesy.

fun farts wrote:

The more Hansen speaks, the less credible he gets.

The more 'fun farts' farts....... the more credible he gets.