A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly

UPDATE: Thanks to a tip from Willis Eschenbach, there’s some developing news in that story from Dr. James Hansen. The Salon interviewee and book author, Rob Reiss that I quoted, now admits he somehow conflated 40 years with 20 years, and concedes that Dr. Hansen actually said 40 years for his prediction. However, as the newest analysis shows, it doesn’t make any difference, and we still aren’t seeing the magnitude of sea level rise predicted, now 23 years into it.

See the relevant excerpt below:

Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message:

I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.

Source: this update on Dr. Hansen’s personal web page at Columbia University.

In my story, below, I quoted from Reiss here in the Salon interview.

So I’m happy to make the correction for Dr. Hansen in my original article, since Mr. Reiss reports on his original error in conflating 40 years with 20 years. But let’s look at how this changes the situation with forty years versus twenty.

Per Dr. Hansen’s prediction in 1988, now in 2011, 23 years later, we’re a bit over halfway there … so the sea level rise should be about halfway up the side of Manhattan Island by now.

How’s that going? Are the predictions coming true? Let’s find out. Let’s look at the tide gauge in New York and see what it says.

Here’s the PSMSL page http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php

You can see the terrifying surge of acceleration in the sea level due to increasing GHGs in the 20th century. Willis downloaded and plotted the data to see what the slope looked like, and then plotted a linear average line.

Here it is overlaid with the Colorado satellite data. Note the rate of rise is unchanged:

And add to that, the recent peer reviewed paper from the Journal of Coastal Research that said: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”

As of this update in March 2011, we’re 23 years into his prediction of the West Side Highway being underwater. From what I can measure in Google Earth, Dr. Hansen would need at least a ten foot rise in forty years to make his prediction work. See this image below from Google Earth where I placed the pointe over the West Side Highway, near the famous landmark and museum, the USS Intrepid:

According to Google Earth, the West Side Highway is 10 feet above sea level here - click to enlarge

The lat/lon should you wish to check yourself is: 40.764572° -73.998498°

Here’s a ground level view (via a tourist photo) so you can see the vertical distance from the roadway to the sea level on that day and tide condition. Sure looks like at least 10 feet to me.

Image from Panoramio

According to the actual data, after 23 years, we’ve seen about a 2.5 inch rise. There’ s still a very long way to go to ten feet to cover the West Side Highway there.

To reach the goal he predicted in 1988, Dr. Hansen needs to motivate the sea to do his bidding, he’s gonna have to kick it in gear and use a higher octane driver if he’s going to get there. – Anthony

The original story is below:

===========================================================

The news today from the Pew Institute tells us that many Americans are backing away from the predictions of catastrophic climate change. This may be because many predictions simply haven’t come true.

Most, if not all, WUWT readers know Dr. James Hansen of GISS. He’s credited with jump starting the debate in 1988 with his now famous “sweaty” testimony before Congress in June 1988. See more about the stagecraft of that event here.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hansen_1988_congress.jpg

Readers might be tempted to think that I’m going to point out the discrepancies between the three different model scenarios that Dr. Hansen presented to Congress in 1988, as shown below. But these model projections are very well known. I’m talking about something else entirely.

Hansen's 3 model scenarios compared to temperature records from RSS (satellite) and GISS (surface). Graphic: Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit

In Dr. Hansen’s case, he’s been living the life of a scientist in the media spotlight since, giving thousands of interviews. He’s also taken on the role of activist during that time, getting himself arrested this year for obstructing a public highway.

He likely doesn’t remember this one interview he gave to a book author approximately 20 years ago, but fortunately that author recounted the interview on Salon.com. What is most interesting about this particular Hansen interview is that he dispenses with the usual models and graphs, and makes predictions about what will happen in 20 years to New York City, right in his own neighborhood. Sea level figures prominently.

Here’s the interview.

In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. Red emphasis mine.

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, here, just in case it should be deleted. So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980’s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.

The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC,  has a view of the Hudson River.

Here’s a Google Earth street level view of 2880 Broadway:

GISS is located right aboive "Monk's - Click for a larger image
The NASA GISS building at 2880 Broadway and 112th Street- The arrows indicate my guesses for offices of Dr. James Hansen and Dr, Gavin Schmidt - Click for a larger image

Using Google Earth, I can actually fly right up to (what I think is) Dr. Hansen’s window and recreate the view. (Note to anyone who worries, this info about the location is public domain information, published on the NASA GISS office website)

First let’s establish the location in traditional downlooking map style view at put Dr. Hansen’s line of sight on the image:

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image

Here is a close in view, from further east on 112th street, just behind the GISS building looking northwest to the Hudson river. Google’s 3D buildings feature is used to recreate the buildings:

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image

Here’s what the view from Dr. Hansen’s window at GISS looks like:

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image

And finally, here is the view from the Hudson, looking back to the GISS building:

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image

In the recounting of the interview by Rob Reiss, Hansen makes several claims about trees, birds, police cars, and crime. I can’t comment on those as I have no data. What I can comment on is this prediction by Dr. Hansen:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

As you can clearly see in the Google Earth images, the West Side Highway remains dry and open. Sea level (at which the Hudson River at that point becomes) is not encroaching on the highway. Note the date on the Google Earth timeline toolbar in the upper left. The aerial imagery was taken approximately 20 years later, on May 12th, 2008.

So much for local climate change predictions by the leading global authority on climate change.

Even if we give Dr. Hansen the benefit of 30 years, I’ll point out that satellite measured rate of change of global sea level has slowed significantly in the last few years, and is not likely to rise enough to meet Dr. Hansen’s prediction even 30 years out. See this story.

In fact using the University of Colorado interactive sea level plotting tool, we can see virtually no trend in the last 20 years:

Sea level plot - just off Manhattan Island - Graph: University of Colorado
Sea level plot - just off Manhattan Island - Graph: University of Colorado

You can reproduce it here at sealevel.colorado.edu

I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

161 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 24, 2009 9:32 am

Hansen’s recent paper indicates that the warming is not due to CO2. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm

October 24, 2009 10:56 am

West Side Highway lies 3 m above sealevel. The fastest sealevel rise during the last deglaciation was about 14 m per 1000 years. To drown West Side Highway in 20 years according to Dr Hansen’s scenario would require a sealevel rise of 700 m per 1000 years. Unprecedented. / Max

October 24, 2009 11:05 am

Sorry – about 150 m per 1000 years. I was carried away.
Max

DoctorJJ
October 24, 2009 6:50 pm

For everyone asking about a website to track the predictions, there is a website
http://wrongtomorrow.com
I just checked it and it seems like it’s temporarily down. You can check google’s cache to see what it looks like though. The guy who runs it will accept submissions for any talking head that makes outlandish predictions.

Roger Knights
October 24, 2009 9:29 pm

Continuing on our tangent about political meddling in weapons procurement, the Allies fat-headedly rejected Dutchman Fokker’s triplane (3-wing) design, which was clearly superior, as shown by the results the Germans achieved with it, when he turned to them.

wikiwonk
October 25, 2009 7:38 pm

It’s too darn easy to poke fun at this kind of prediction. I dislike the grandstanding Hanson was engaged in in the first place. Even so, if he merely got the direction of the effect right, he’s playing for par on a tough course. (Many don’t: Paul Erhlich comes to mind.) If sea water is lapping at that roadway in another 20 years, I say he more than covered the bet. If the water already covered that roadway by now, I would say he eagled a par 4. Take a look out a different window, and tell me Hanson’s all wet.
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
Twenty years ago, he might have said, “well, we don’t understand the ice caps, but we have cause for alarm”. Who would even remember the guy had he done so? Who would now be posting long pages commending his understated prescience?

Kurt
October 25, 2009 11:46 pm

“Chris (09:10:52) :
The green line was the business as usual case (if I recall correctly) that involved some minor reductions in the growth of CO2 emissions (e.g., higher fuel efficiency, wind power, better heat conservation in buildings, etc.). The red line was the worse case.”
You have it wrong. I have a copy of Hansen’s testimony in my desk drawer and he clearly refers to scenario A (the red line) as the “business as usual” scenario. In his 1988 published paper, the only caveat he raised with respect to scenario A was that it must “eventually be on the high side of reality” because resource constraints would have to limit exponential growth of emissions in the distant future. I should add, however, that the 1988 paper also indicated that scenario B was “perhaps” the most plausible, whatever that means (putting “perhaps” in front of “plausible” renders the latter term meaningless – it’s either the most plausible or it’s not).
My feeling is that Michaels was correct to use scenario A in his own testimony to Congress when comparing Hansen’s predictions to reality; since we were in the first decade of the projection, long before resource constraints kick in to limit the exponential growth of CO2 emissions, it was perfectly fair to use scenario A, particularly given the “business as usual” remarks.
When Hansen got testy about being shown wrong, he took his own words out of context and pretended as if the original paper had simply referred to scenario A as being “on the high side of reality” and then, post hoc, characterized it as a “worst case scenario.” But if you go back to the original paper, he never referred to it as such, and in fact pointed out that the CO2 growth rate assumed by scenario A was conservative.
Also, when he tried to defend his projections in a follow-up paper, all he did was compare the observed temperatures to the three scenarios and remark that the observed temperatures followed scenario B pretty closely (although they were just as good of a match to scenario C at that point, though no longer even that by now). At no point did do the preliminary factual work of showing that the actual growth in greenhouse gasses followed scenario B. This seemed to be a pretty obvious logical flaw; if, for example, the world was following emissions scenario A, while temperatures were more in line with what the model expected for scenario B, then the model would be an abject failure. Simply overlaying observed temperatures on the three predictions for the three scenarios, and remarking that the observed temperatures followed the middle curve demonstrated nothing.

Kurt
October 26, 2009 12:06 am

“Kaj L (01:12:37) :
You call this
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
a “prediction that failed badly” proves only that you don’t understand what you are talking about.”
Actually, that was the worthless graphic in Hansen’s follow-up article, to which I referred in my last post. Without knowing what the emissions growth rate is that accompanies the land-ocean measurements to 2005, you can’t determine from the figure whether the prediction failed or not. Also, in 2006, the easiset test of whether or not the 1988 model was accurate would have been to dust off the model, input the actual emissions rates, CO2 concentration, volcanic particles, etc. and see how it performed. It was Hansen’s model, and I find it hard to believe that it would have been discarded. The fact that he didn’t use such an obvious method of validation indicates to me that he knew it would fail, so he just put out that overlay hoping that he could fool the journalists into thinking that the proximity of actual temperatures to one of the three scenarios was meaningful.

oshtkd
November 6, 2009 11:50 am

Wow! This is great “data!”
So 97% of the world’s climate scientists and EVERY scientific academy on the planet are wrong because James Hansen made this remark in 1988?
You are really a great scientist!!
Thanks so much for setting us and the world’s REAL scientists straight!

Stas Peterson
December 4, 2009 1:34 pm

Talk about irony.
Paul and Gavin’s offices are in the same building that Seinfeld producer, the esteemed ‘Piss Christ ‘ producer and Christian tolerance seeker, used as Seinfelds home.
It turns out that Larry David’s wife, Laurie David, is the producer/author of the comic phantasy, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. For which Mrs. David won an Academy Award, and for which some members of the Oscar Academy now want revoked.
Tom’s Restaurant would be reachable today only by boat, had the prophecies of Dr. Hansen uttered in 1988 and re-prophesied in 2001; and Mrs. David been based in any reality in this portion of the Multi-verse.

Keith Sketchley
December 6, 2009 11:21 am

Landin said: “What happened to those who hid the truth in Atlas Shrugged? They were exposed as frauds and their institutions imploded.
Truth can never be hidden forever.”
I comment:
And in one scene the government goons are fretting about a particular lie they’ve been publicizing for weeks that no one is believing them.
Given the low rank of climate change in polls, before Climategate, there may be hope despite the result of a whole lot of US voters forgetting Martin Luther King’s maxim about “content of character”.
(Canada’s current government is better though trying to sit side-saddle on the fence for avoid getting defeated.)

1 5 6 7