Talk:Storms of My Grandchildren

Hello User:Arthur Rubin, what is your Reason?
Hello User:Arthur Rubin, what is your Reason? 99.102.183.240 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for inclusion. It isn't "scientific", and doesn't talk about "scientific opinions...".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Further inappropriate additions by the 99.* anons complaining above:


 * 1)  (would be needed only if there was not a link to "global warming" in the article, and quite possibly not even then)
 * 2) In the "See also" section
 * 3) Politics of global warming (United States) (as Politics of global warming is included; only one should be listed)
 * 4) Scientific opinion on climate change (no evidence the book is scientific, or relates to a "scientific opinion")

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you say that A Brief History of Time relates to a scientific opinion on cosmology? --Teratornis (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-CO2 greenhouse gasses
A sentence was recently added to the lede:
 * Hansen has advanced an alternative view of global warming wherein he argues the 0.74±0.18°C rise in average global temperatures over the last 100 years has been driven mainly by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (such as methane).

It's properly sourced to Hansen et al., but its relevance to the book has not been established. Furthermore, Hansen's recommendation of a carbon tax would seem to contradict the assertion that non-carbon greenhouse gases are the primary cause. It certainly discredits his support of a 350 ppm limit on atmospheric, mentioned later in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a paper from 2000, and thus earlier than even AR3, and that's not a very good summary of it anyway. Quoting from the article: "Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others..." Plus, Hansen's much more recent "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" is a more comprehensive study with better data and models, and essentially the same as what's in his book. It's unsurprising that his views may have evolved with our improved understanding of the nature of the forcings. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no necessary contradiction with Hansen's recommendation of a carbon tax as it could (and presumably, should) be a tax levied on all man-made greenhouse gases as a function of their carbon dioxide equivalent. See Global-warming potential for a table of some other greenhouse gases, which would presumably be "carbon taxed" in terms of their multiples of carbon dioxide. --Teratornis (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The books I have seen that advise the reader on how to cut his or her carbon footprint explain the principle of carbon dioxide equivalence. For example this underpins the advice to eat less beef, lamb, and dairy products, which attain much of their high carbon footprints as a result of methane produced by ruminant animals. Uncaptured landfill gas is another important source of methane which contributes to an individual's carbon footprint (from the organic waste we send to landfill). --Teratornis (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've copied the item to Talk:James Hansen, if useful there. 99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Carbon PPM levels, now solidly at 400, first hit in 2015 during cyclic peak
The article mentions Hansen's happy number of 350, such as 350.org suggests. It might be mentioned that in fact since the time of the book the level has continued to steadily increase not only past 400 ppm, but that it is believed that it will be a permanent level for quite some time. This may relate to some of the "tipping points" Hansen refers to in the book and in speeches and interviews during this time period in general, such as rapid ice sheet decline. The 2010s has proven to be no slacker in setting heat and Arctic sea ice records, though some key effects such as significantly accelerating SLR have under-performed. B137 (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)