Earth is trapping twice as much heat as it did in 2005

So what? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere went up from 380 ppm in 2005 to about 410 in 2019. This is pushing up the temperature of the surface of the earth, which means that the planet has got to absorb heat. The planet as whole has quite a high thermal mass, so it's going to take a while before the system equilibrates. Short term stuff like La Nina/El Nino alternations mess up the process even more in the short term.

There is a lot of stuff around that it is worth being alarmist about, but this isn't any of it.

OMG! In ten years we'll all be dead!

Probably not. But we can hope from relief from some of the people who post about stuff they don't understand too well.

If they don't understand much about climate science they may not have a particularly sound grasp of medical science either.

Once again you give away the fact you don't have a clue in hell what you're talking about. Your assessment of this finding is at odds with Hansen who's been studying every aspect of this subject in great detail for the past 40 years.

"Two numbers, atmospheric CO2 amount and global surface temperature, have received special prominence, and they deserve attention. However, this third number, Earth’s energy imbalance, is perhaps the most important. CO2 is just one of the forcings that drive climate change, even if the dominant one. Earth’s energy imbalance incorporates the effect of CO2 and all other forcings, including some, such as human-made aerosols, that are poorly measured at best."

"That imbalance must be reduced approximately to zero for the sake of stabilizing climate."

As usual you're too dull to make sense of anything you read, have no direction , and can't begin to focus intelligently, preferring instead to parrot bits and pieces of factoids that make you sound more learned than you are.

In respect of Hansen's summary of the importance of energy imbalance, you're presenting yourself as the one we need the most relief from...

It will sooner, the place, top heavy with way too many people and led by imbeciles, is collapsing like a deck of cards.

No. Things keep getting better. Nutrition is up. Lifespans are up. Literacy is up. Birth rates are dropping. Deaths from disease, war, natural disasters, all way down.

Humankind is approaching a golden age. It's just begun.

I'm pretty sure history has taught us that just when everyone thinks things are super-wonderful- BOOM- major global catastrophe hits.

OK, keep hoping, or praying, for the worst.

Not in the US. It went down a bit there in 2019, which is unusual.

As happens before the next epidemic or natural disaster comes along. Climate change is ramping up to create some really nasty natural disasters, and John Larkin seems to have been flattered into thinking that they can't possibly happen, so the fossil carbon extraction industry can keep on collecting its dividends for a few more years.

They don't last. Mostly they never existed, except as delusions in the minds of gullible twits like John Larkin.

Hansen? He was the clown who turned off the air conditioning to some committee room in either the house or the senate back in, what was it,

And then when the slight warming trend stopped for about fifteen years, he switched the name to climate change after trying all sorts of other names.

The climate ALWAYS changes (ask the Mayans!), naming something like that means it can't be disproved, which is a win-win for the climate alarmists.

John

Hansen isn't actually any kind of clown, much as denialist lunatics feel the need to claim that he is.

It didn't. A particularly intense El Nino pushed up the global temperature in 1998, and the denialist spent the next couple of years claiming that the warming trend had stopped.

That's public relations. Hansen doesn't seem to specialise in that, but denialist twits do like to keep their arguments simple - they only work on other half-wits anyway.

Twaddle. The atmospheric CO2 level is now higher than it has been for 20 million years, and that is real difference, even if John Robertson doesn't know enough to understand why.

The Mayans practiced non-sustainable agriculture, it wasn't weather that ruined their crops. As for 'disproved', you don't disprove a theoretical model in the sciences, you improve it, or use it as-is. You can disprove an hypothesis, though: what hypothesis do you refer to?

As for 'win', what prize do you believe the 'climate alarmists' have won? That metaphor sucks.