Part 1: 

Hansen, J. (n.d.). Transcript of “Why I must speak out about climate change”. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en

*Cited in APA Format*

Part 2: 

James Hansen talks about the generality of climate change and why it is important to speak on it. Hansen states, “I was fortunate to join NASA and successfully propose an experiment to fly to Venus. Our instrument took this image of the veil of Venus, which turned out to be a smog of sulfuric acid. But while our instrument was being built, I became involved in calculations of the greenhouse effect here on Earth, because we realized that our atmospheric composition was changing.” Hansen talked about the greenhouse effect telling me, “… that gasses such as CO2 absorb heat, thus acting like a blanket warming Earth’s surface. In Hansen’s Ted Talk he states that, “By 15 years later, evidence of global warming was much stronger. Most of the things mentioned in our 1981 paper were facts. I had the privilege to speak twice to the president’s climate task force. But energy policies continued to focus on finding more fossil fuels.” Global warming is affecting a lot of folks. Stated in the Ted Talk, “The Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico heatwave and drought last year, Moscow the year before and Europe in 2003, were all exceptional events, more than three standard deviations outside the norm. Fifty years ago, such anomalies covered only two- to three-tenths of one percent of the land area. In recent years, because of global warming, they now cover about 10 percent — an increase by a factor of 25 to 50.” Lastly he tells me why he is alarmed on climate change, how clear the science is, and communication is key to the urgency of the situation and how we can find effective solutions. 

Part 3: 

I agree with James Hansen on what he has to say about climate change as well as the individuals that are affected. He made points that are poised and believes that change is upon us. I thought it was excellent to provide data because data helps us have clarity in scientific information. One piece of data in Hansen’s Ted Talk is, “What sea level rise can we look forward to? The last time CO2 was 390 ppm, today’s value, sea level was higher by at least 15 meters, 50 feet. Where you are sitting now would be under water. Most estimates are that, this century, we will get at least one meter. I think it will be more if we keep burning fossil fuels, perhaps even five meters, which is 18 feet, this century or shortly thereafter.” He’s saying that burning fossil fuels are bad.

Another thing to note is that the ice caps are melting by stating, “Ice sheets would continue to disintegrate for centuries.” Hansen is not wrong because the previous point he made about the sea levels correlates with ice caps at their melting point which can add onto sea levels rising. He also states, “This path, if continued, guarantees that we will pass tipping points leading to ice sheet disintegration that will accelerate out of control of future generations.” Human beings are the root of ice caps that are at their tipping point. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have temperatures that are so high. Poles are even higher which result into glaciers that melt rapidly which go into land and sea. 

Time is really of the essence right now, we can make climate change have a positive effect even when the cause is bad. I really do question the future of the Earth. In Earth Science class at high school I was taught briefly about Earth and how it was made. There are so many layers to Earth and what it can do, and it is our planet to protect as if we are the guardians of it. So, why can’t people suck it up and care? Why is it hard for folks to recycle, reduce, and reuse? “Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth.” It seems like you all want this if you don’t try to care for the planet you’re living and breathing on.  

Part 4:

“That is the equivalent of what we face now. Yet, we dither, taking no action to divert the asteroid, even though the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005, it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century. If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year — extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren’t even starting.”