Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Normally, I might not deal with a four year old paper by James Hansen, the NASA doyenne of serial doomcasters. However, I note that this paper has been cited ten times this year alone, so I thought I might comment.
At some point when he was not giving a Press Conference, or getting arrested, or spending time complaining that he was being “muzzled”, Mr. Hansen wrote:
Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
I love the naked power grab. I mean, what an audacious plan!
First, you unilaterally declare that there is some huge looming disaster a long ways in the future. Using a variety of methods fair and foul, you obtain the full cooperation of other scientists, governments, educational institutions, and the media the world around. With all of you, the whole chorus, baying for skeptic’s blood in full voice, you spend a quarter century trying to convince the people of the oncoming Thermageddon.
Second, after said quarter century you notice that despite having the entire resources of the educational and media institutions of the planet and the blind agreement of other scientists and billions of dollars poured into trying … you have not been able to establish your case. Heck, you haven’t even been able to falsify the null hypothesis. In fact, after a long string of predictions of doom, none of which came to pass, and at the tail end of a 15-year hiatus in the warming, the US public doesn’t believe a word you say. Oops. Over two-thirds of them think climate scientists sometimes falsify their research. Oops.
In response, you say that the problem is that scientists have been too retice … too re … sorry, it’s hard to type and laugh at the same time … you say that scientists have been to reticent, that they haven’t been alarmist enough or aggressive enough in promoting their views.
That’s the problem? After 25 years of unbridled alarm from scientists and everyone else from Presidents to my kid’s teachers, the problem is that scientists are not alarmist enough, they’re too reticent to state their true opinion? Really? That’s the reason the public doesn’t believe you? Is that your final answer?
(Does he really, in his heart of hearts, believe that? Possible, I guess, but it presupposes a level of self-delusion that is scary …)
The real beauty of the plan, however, the sting in the tale, is the proposed solution—a “panel of scientific leaders” to inform the people of the error of our ways. I mean, the IPCC did so well, let’s make a sea level rise mini-IPCC. Staff it with people who will know what to say, who won’t have to be prompted.
Mr. Hansen claims he is a scientist first and an activist second. He and far too many other climate scientists are activists first, and scientists maybe fourth or fifth if at all. He proposes convening a Star Council of Jim and his hand-picked acolytes to lecture us sternly on a radical sea level rise slated to occur when they are dead? He wants us to listen to his pals make predictions they’ll never be held accountable for? And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years? Fuggedaboutit. He probably felt safe with such a long-term prediction. In any case, we’re more than halfway there, and since 1988 the sea level in NYC has gone up by 2.5 inches (6 cm). Would you buy a sea level prediction from Jim?
There certainly are many problems in the field of climate science. Reticence on the part of climate scientists to clean up their own backyard is high on the list.
Reticence on the part of climate scientists to make alarmist claims, about sea level or any other imagined future disaster, is not on the list at all.
The main problem, however, is thinking that it’s a communications problem. It’s not. The problem is that Jim and his Climategate pals lied and cheated and pulled strings and even destroyed evidence in order to advance their views. All of that was revealed clearly in the UEA emails. They stand convicted by their own words.
As a result, lots of folks don’t believe a word that the climate scientists say. And reasonably so. I have seen no reason to believe they are now acting differently. There has been no “mea culpa” from even one individual involved. Noble Cause Corruption appears to have rotted the ethical parts of their brains entirely. They don’t even think they did wrong … and the rest of the honorable, decent, good climate scientists? Well, by and large they played the faithful dog Spot, they rolled over and played dead.
That’s the problem, not communications or reticent scientists. I had hoped that Climategate would lance the boil and the healing could begin … foolish boy, wrong again …
So no, I believe I’ll pass on the brilliant plan for the formation of the Official Panel Of The Sea-Level Wise Men. No need to even read the novel, most of us have seen the IPCC movie, and would prefer not to be forced to sit through a bad sequel.
w.
otter17 says:
October 25, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Well, let me check my history … have I publicly called for my opponents to be tried and thrown in jail for their beliefs … hang on, still looking through the records … nope. Never done that.
So calls by a high government official for to throw me in jail are OK because no one has acted on it yet … curious. I suspect you might be a bit more concerned if he was calling for you to be thrown in the slammer. Me, I’ve never been in jail, and I never want to be in there again, it’s a peculiarity of mine that makes me sensitive to guys like Hansen abusing his position.
Hansen is a world-renowned climate scientist who works for and represents the US Government. Comparing him to a random anonymous blog commenter is … well, I’ll just call it a false parallel and leave it there..
Good question indeed, otter. I truly don’t see how. The warming is slated to occur, according to AGW theory, at night in the winter in the extra-tropics. Ask a homeless person in New York if warmer nights in December would be bad for the poor …
IN addition, the tropics, where most of the poor live, have scarcely warmed at all. The UAH satellite temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropics shows warming. For the tropics, on the other hand, it shows no statistically significant warming over the last 32 years.
The BEST data shows that the world warmed about 2°C over the last two centuries. Where is the loss to the poor (or to the plants and animals for that matter) in that warming? People sleeping warmer at night in the winter? Longer growing seasons in the extra-tropics? Where are the climate calamities from that 2° of warming? Where are the expansion of disease, the increase in floods, the huge numbers of storms, where are the calamities foretold from the dread 2°C temperature increase? We’ve seen the 2°C, according to BEST … but we haven’t seen the catastrophes.
So yes, I have asked myself if I am experiencing confirmation bias. I don’t think so, although of course any man’s testimony in that regard is automatically suspect …
My best to you,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 26, 2011 at 12:56 am
“Good question indeed, otter. I truly don’t see how. The warming is slated to occur, according to AGW theory, at night in the winter in the extra-tropics. Ask a homeless person in New York if warmer nights in December would be bad for the poor …”
_______________
You are avoiding the question. Have you even considered the possibility that climate change due to burning fossil fuels may pose a drain on the economy?
otter, for a number of years I taught the village scale use of renewable energy. I am no opponent of renewables. I lived off the grid for 2 years, with panels and 12 two-volt batteries.
However, for the poor of the world, there is no substitute at present for fossil fuel. Nothing has the energy density. In the Solomon Islands, for example, most of the fuel drives outboard motors, because there are few roads and all goods travel by sea. The outboard motors also are the means for harvesting the fish upon which the nation depends.
And for those folks, all of the renewables mean nothing. You can’t replace an outboard motor with solar panels or a windmill, neither of those can do what the outboard can do.
The same thing is true for the city poor. A big coal-fired or natural gas plant cannot be replaced by solar or wind. Every megawatt of solar added means you need to add a megawatt of conventional power. And it’s expensive, adding either solar or wind ups the energy cost.
Finally, you recommend conservation. While that works well in the first world, where we have more than we can use, the idea would be met with whoops of laughter in the third world. There, nothing is wasted, every scrap is used. In Jamaica they turn off the taxi headlights whenever they don’t need them, to save fuel … and a few distant streetlights are the signal they don’t need headlights. Generally, there’s no low-hanging fruit from conservation in poor countries, that’s a first world possibility only.
w.
Hilaronic (hilariously ironic). Climate change hysteria has indeed caused profligate waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, down multiple rat-holes (from windmills to CCS), which has all come as a direct displacement and misplacement of funds that could have been doing actual work in the economy.
As for climate change “due to burning fossil fuels” itself, not a penny, not a sou in the real world. Only in witless extrapolations of computerized fantasies.
otter17 says:
October 26, 2011 at 1:09 am
No, I’m not avoiding the question, that’s just your nasty mind at work. I misunderstood your question.
Sure, climate change is posing a huge drain on the economy already. The economies of Europe have been affected by the Kyoto Protocol, the US is now digging itself into the same pit with the EPA regulation of CO2 along with the California regulations of CO2, which also just went into effect.
So the answer to your question is clearly yes. The economic damage from the claim that climate will change from burning fossil fuels is already well underway.
Oh, wait … you asked , not for damage from the claims of AGW, but for actual damage from climate change due to burning fossil fuels. As soon as anyone shows that the climate does change from fossil fuels, we can discuss that. Up to now, there’s no evidence that it’s happening, and it’s hard to describe imaginary damages.
Oh, wait … you asked, not if climate changes from burning fossil fuels had done any actual damage, but IF it were possible that IF climate were actually changed by burning fossil fuels it might someday cause some kind of damage somewhere.
Sure. That chain of IF’s is possible, anythings possible. But odds? Well, the change in CO2 is supposed to warm the climate up to some mythical 2° or so. But the BEST data shows we’ve seen that rise in the last two centuries, with no adverse effects, and plenty of beneficial ones. So the odds of any kind of catastrophic change from a couple degrees warming seems like about zero to me. In fact, given our experience over the last 2 centuries, it seems that IF the AGW hypothesis is correct in principle, and IF it is also accurate that we might get a 2° temperature rise, then the odds seem to favor “net benefit” over “net loss”. Might not happen that way, but that’s the evidence we have for what a 2° temperature rise might do … and the answer is “damn little”. In fact, small enough that without thermometers we might not even notice a one or two degree warming.
Then you have to multiply that slight net benefit, might even be a slight net loss, by the odds that AGW is correct, and then by the odds that if it is correct we’ll see a 2° temperature rise.
The resulting number is small, otter. Very small. Contrast that to the damage that has already been done to the poor by the drag of the various Kyoto, EPA, carbon-tax, and other feel-good schemes. The AGW alarmists are causing lots of real harm to the poor, harm that will persist for decades, in the name of averting your fantasized Thermageddon fifty years from now that may never arrive.
Bad logic in my book, although I suppose YMMV …
w.
otter17
The Prius is a very mixed blessing.
http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/10/21/what-s-the-greenest-vehicle-on-the-road/
.
More Impressed by genuine electric vehicles (for those who can afford them) when you can charge it yourself, although even then the life time costs of manufacturing and especially battery replacement do not appear to make then as ‘green’ as the latest generation petrol vehicles.
Buying electricity for the home is likely to be a small part of your overall power usage. This is not intended to be snark, but I had never heard of Viridian before. It seems that to ‘join’
Viridian you pay to be an associate in what appears to be a network marketing scheme. Is that correct?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=570796
http://www.electricrates.com/37032/viridian-energy-scam/
This is a business model entirely unfamiliar to me in this field as our power companies in the UK don’t sell like this.
I agree we can go a long way on energy efficiency, and as petrol (gas) is some 10$ a gallon over here in the UK, and electricity/natural gas is around twice as expensive as in the US you can rest assured we are likely to be much further down this efficiency road than most in the US are, but there is a law of diminishing returns.Tens of thousands of people will die here over the winter as around one third of all households are now in fuel poverty. With the govt ‘green taxes’ our energy costs are slated to double in five years, will become intermittent (as renewables are so expensive and inefficient) and half of all UK households will then be in fuel poverty.
As for your using wind power, that’s all very well on an individual basis, but it is being used as a serious alternative to grown up energy sources. In the UK , where we are building wind turbines as if there is no tomorrow, our coldest weather comes during the winter when a high pressure settles over us. In that case there is often no wind for weeks on end.
You commented on my response as follows;
———— ——-
“My own research shows, it goes back to 1607.
Either Berkely is wrong or the hockey stick is wrong. Which one do you want to go with?”
Your reply to me;
“Unless your analysis that proves either of those two wrong is peer reviewed in a journal, I am not going to take your word for it.”
——- —–
The graph from Berkely is there for all to see. They go back to 1800 and it has been warming all the way from the depths of the LIA. Dr Mann’s version shows a static/slightly dropping temperature profile until 1900 when it shoots up. One must be wrong. Who is it?
By the way here is my web site. I collect Historic instrumental records. The Met office archive in nearby Exeter is also a very useful source of information so I guess I know as much about the subject as anyone.Where does your knowlredge come from?
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Lots of good information and artiucles there, there is even a ‘green’ corner.
Hope your knee is better soon. All the best
.
tonyb
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 26, 2011 at 11:02 am
“So the odds of any kind of catastrophic change from a couple degrees warming seems like about zero to me.”
___________________
You are a wild and crazy oddsmaker. We will have to agree to disagree. There isn’t any point in discussing a subject with someone like you. Tell you what, I’ll check on ya again in 2020.
otter17 says:
October 26, 2011 at 9:53 pm
You mean that in your opinion … wait for it … it’s good … in your opinion I’m …
…
…
Not Alarmist Enough?
I knew that was the problem.
otter, I invited you to provide us with an account of the catastrophes resulting from the last 2° temperature rise, 1800 to now. You haven’t named a single one.
Now, that doesn’t mean the next 2° rise won’t cause catastrophes. But it certainly proves that there is no requirement that a 2° temperature rise causes catastrophes. And it certainly argues against the probability of the occurrence of a catastrophe.
Is the chance of climate catastrophe really “about zero”? Naw, that was a bit of poetic license, but it’s certainly not large. History says the chances of catastrophe from 2° rise is small, we have no historical record of such a catastrophe. And an examination of the arguments that CO2 will inevitably cause temperature rise shows that there is little evidence to support that claim. Small chance times little evidence equals pretty low odds of some catastrophic Thermageddon.
What the worst case? Warmer winter nights in Wisconsin? Longer growing seasons in Canada? Heck, maybe it’s a three foot sea level rise … but despite a quarter century of James Hansen waiting for the rapture, there’s no sign of any increase in sea level rise, and lately it’s even been slowing down.
You gotta understand, otter, I’ve lived through a bunch of failed prognostication. Hansen predicted ten feet (3 m) of sea level rise in forty years in New York. We’re halfway there, and the rise has been two and a half inches (6 cm) … so no, otter, your prognostications of doom don’t impress me. I’ve seen better men than you make predictions. I watched Paul Ehrlich fail repeatedly and miserably, he’s the king of the failed serial doomcasters, I watched Hansen go down in flames, more than once.
Do I believe in oncoming climate catastrophe? Not a bit. I believe that the earth abides, that life and the planet and the climate are infinitely more complex than our computer programs. I think if the earth were that delicate, that tipsy, that subject to a minuscule variation in a trace gas, it would not have a temperature stable to a few degrees in ten thousand years.
All the best,
w.
Gail Combs says:
October 25, 2011 at 8:42 am
AND NOW you understand why the climate gang dances around FOIA requests, wipes the data from computers, lost the data.. Only by screen capture and down loading and saving data did skeptics have a chance of grabbing that data as Ira did.
If Ira captured this ‘data’ by grabbing a screenshot, then at least he could have told us when and where he took that screenshot. But he did not. He just presents some blinking graph and apparently that is enough for the gullables among us to accept his proclamations as the truth, no questions asked.
Didn’t Kurt Lembeck settle this issue in the 1970’s with his paper on Earth’s Variable Rotational axis? There is no “global climate change”. The global climate is pretty much the same. It’s the regions of the earth that are shifting into different climates. If you have a ball half in ice and half out, then twist the ball slightly in a diagonal manner you are exposing different areas of the ball to the ice, but the overall climate has not changed a bit. Oh yeah, and the only ‘man made’ part of my analogy is when I twist the ball.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 26, 2011 at 11:02 pm
“otter, your prognostications of doom don’t impress me. I’ve seen better men than you make predictions.”
__________
Look man, I don’t make up my own prognostications on a subject that is not my area of expertise. What I do is evaluate the body of scientific knowledge that is accumulated through the rigorous scientific process. My knowledge comes from the papers and the analyses that are based on the papers.
“Do I believe in oncoming climate catastrophe? Not a bit. I believe that the earth abides, that life and the planet and the climate are infinitely more complex than our computer programs. I think if the earth were that delicate, that tipsy, that subject to a minuscule variation in a trace gas, it would not have a temperature stable to a few degrees in ten thousand years.
__________
You can believe whatever you want, whether it is in opposition of the science or not, but don’t be surprised when people challenge your beliefs with the journal peer reviewed scientific evidence. Anyway, I’m sure by 2020 some form of legislation and ramp down in fossil fuel emissions will have been initiated. I’ll check back in 2020 to see how we think the world is doing.
All the best.
-Ryan Otte
otter17 says:
October 28, 2011 at 3:27 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 26, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Ah. Fair enough. In that case let me say that “your repetition of other people’s prognostications of doom don’t impress me”.
Opposition to the science? THE science? Which science is THE science?
For example, I asked you to provide us with some kind of scientific evidence that the 2° of warming in the last century caused any kinds of catastrophes. You have provided nothing. Nor has anyone else. So yes, I will be surprised when someone comes up with some evidence, scientific or even anecdotal, of some huge damage done by that 2° of historical warming.
Still waiting for the evidence, otter, and I’m happy to be surprised … bring it on.
Since the Kyoto Protocol was legislation signed some years ago to “ramp down … fossil fuel emissions”, we don’t have to wait until 2020 to see how the world is doing … we can look right now.
The answer is, the Kyoto Protocol did … well … nothing. Unless you follow the AGW mantra, “correlation is causation”, in which case the start of the Kyoto Protocol was suspiciously near the start of the current hiatus in warming …
So, no need to come back in 2020, otter. Been there, tried one of those Otter recommended “legislation and ramp down in fossil fuel emissions” plans. Otter might recommend it. I don’t. It failed miserably.
Thanks for playing, though, and next time … bring along that surprising scientific evidence you spoke of, that no one has been able to find.
w.
Willis, you outdid yourself once again.
You managed to create another opinion piece, flooding over with ad hominems and strawmans, without a single reference to any scientific paper, and still get 188 responses. That’s pretty awesome for an ‘amateur scientist’ who just in his previous post claims to have found that cloud forcing works as a “governor” that regulates temperature on this planet, but can’t even agree with himself about the definition of what “cloud forcing” actually is.
Still that does not deter you from a constant and relentless level of insults and accusations against scientists who actually (unlike you) publish their research in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and against anyone who dares to state on “your” blog post that they finds these scientific papers more trustworthy than your unsubstantiated assertions, accusations and opinions. For example, you wrote about Hansen : And all this from the man who in 1988 predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise putting parts of NYC underwater in forty years?
So, it would be nice if you would actually show a reference to where Hansen predicted a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise forty years from 1988.
Rob Dekker says:
November 3, 2011 at 10:47 pm
And that obviously gripes your digestion and bothers your inner sense of justice … hey, there is no justice. Otherwise, why would I be a successful author with 188 comments on this piece alone and thousands of people reading my work, and you just a random voice complaining about my success? … like I said, no justice at all.
In any case, in a discussion of Jim Hansen, why would I need to reference a scientific paper? I reserve that for discussing the work of scientists, not alarmist activists like Hansen.
Hey, my latest peer-reviewed paper was announced last week, I’m an awesome guy for an amateur scientist, what can I say?
Are you truly so clueless that you think I make this stuff up? You should know by now that trying to catch me on these things just makes you look foolish. In any case, the citation is here.
w.
PS—You are so naive you still believe that in climate science “peer reviewed” means anything. It doesn’t. Michael Mann’s work was peer reviewed … lotta good that did.
Willis wrote : Are you truly so clueless that you think I make this stuff up? You should know by now that trying to catch me on these things just makes you look foolish. In any case, the citation is here.
Willis, with all due respect, but that link is to another WUWT page which does not actually state what Hansen said. In fact, it seems to be refering (although there is no direct link given) to an interview of Bob Reiss on his book “The Coming Storm”. It also suggests that the interviewers got both the timeframe (20 yrs instead of 40) wrong as well as the condition of a “doubling of CO2”. Either way, no reference to what Hansen actually said in Reiss’ book, and certainly no mention of a “prediction” of “a 10 foot (3m) sea level rise”. That seems to be a creation by you, and possibly a conclusion of Anthony in the post you reference.
One word of advice if you present “evidence” to sustain your assertions : Maybe you could actually quote what Hansen said directly, instead of what Anthony presents, or what an casual interviewer reported on what Reiss may have said in his book on what he thinks that Hansen said in a casual interview some 23 years ago.
Regarding your peer-reviewed paper : congratulations ! I did not know you were a co-author of that recent publication, and I actually found it interesting that regarding mamals and bird extinction rates that for example “the recent continental bird rate is 0.69 as high to 5.9 times higher than background. For islands, it is 98–844 times higher than background on a per species basis.”
[SNIP: uninformed and nasty allegations -w.]
Rob Dekker says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:33 am
Bear in mind that Reiss thinks we are headed for a global meltdown of extreme events. He is a supporter of Hansen’s. He discussed Hansen’s statement with him. Here’s the report:
If you think Reiss is lying, you can take it up with him. Hansen’s only objection to Reiss’s report of the conversation was he (Hansen) said 40 years, not 20 … so it sounds like Hansen believed it too. Reiss believed Hansen said it, Hansen believed he said it, given that I believe it too … that just leaves you …
Regarding the 10 foot rise, he actually said that the West Side Highway would be underwater … you can calculate the rise it would take to do that, but I get at least ten feet …
w.
Rob
I don’t want to interupt your private spat with Willis but Hansen has made many claims.
I am the author of ‘Historic variations in sea levels’. Part 1 is here.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
Parts 2 and 3 will come out in 2012.
This required a huge amount of research and whilst not relevant to part 1,which only went up to the Romans, I certainly collected numerous studies and quotes as to what is likelyto happen this century.
The following quote is taken from this article;
http://www.vaughnbell.net/watermark/science.html
”James Hansen is director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, and has been repeatedly harassed by the Bush Administration for his outspoken views on climate change. A shorter article by Hansen (citation below) puts the sea level rise at 80 feet with a temperature rise of 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit, which would melt ice on Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, and the East Antarctic Ice Shelf.”
This is a paper James Hansen wrote in 2007 which seems to relate to that 80 foot figure.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf
It depends on how fast ice sheets melt,but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades.
This is alarmism at its finest, there is not the slightest evidence of a rise of anything like this amount. Here is the current state of the oceans
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The sea level rise de-celerated in the second half of the 20th century compared to the first (Holgate) and has been doing nothing extraordinary this century except to falter.
tonyb
climatereason I don’t want to interupt your private spat with Willis but Hansen has made many claims.
Thanks for joining this not-so-private forum, tony.
Indeed, Hansen has made many significant scientific claims, but neither of these are contested here. For example, there is not a single line of text in this entire post (with comments) that was actually a direct quote from Hansen (apart from the abstract the Willis quoted in the first paragraph).
Instead, Willis here seems to base his accusations against Hansen on what other people are writing about what yet other people say that Hansen has said. Presentation of this kind of derivatives leads to a great deal of confusion and misrepresentation on what Hansen actually said.
Another very good example of that is right in your post : you mention that a blogger mentioned that Hansen mentioned “80 feet with a temperature rise of 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit” :
http://www.vaughnbell.net/watermark/science.html
Now this blog mentions 3 papers from Hansen. The one that the blogger is refering to is this one :
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2006/NewSchool_20060210.pdf
where Hansen actually states :
You see what went wrong ? First, the blogger mixed up Farenheit with Celcius, and then he failed to state that 25 meters is the “equilibrium sea level”. That means that eventually we will get there. The question is just, how fast will this go ? Of course, nobody
knows exactly how fast we will get 25 meters of sea level rise, and Hansen does not claim to know that either.
However, he does lay out a scenario which is not inconsistent with observations so far :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf
This is the reference that you label with “This is a paper James Hansen wrote in 2007 which seems to relate to that 80 foot figure.”.
In this paper, what Hansen actually states is this :
Incidentally, do you see that you quoted a paper which does NOT sustain your claim of what Hansen said ? And thus you are simply adding to to misinformation which is going rampant on the blogosphere ?
Now can we discuss what Hansen actually said (such as the two blockquotes above) or do you guys want to continue quoting remarks made by a third party ?
Rob
I made no claim other than;
“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt, but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades. ”
I then quoted an arch green group (it was a she not a he) who had mapped the 20 foot sea level increase which seems to come straight from Al Gores popular comedy science fiction movie, and I cited (from it) the very paper by James Hansen that you then quote back to me, that says precisely what I had already indicated, which was to paraphrase (once again)
“It depends on how fast ice sheets melt,but anything from 16 to 80 feet seems to be the scenario according to Hansen, with a fairly loose time scale which he put at decades.
On what evidence are you supporting Hansens written claim of this sort of rise?
He then further confirms his beliefs with such as this;
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/20/207376/hansen-sato-climate-tipping-point-multi-meter-sea-level-rise/
“Right now, we’re headed towards an ice-free planet. That takes us through the Eemian interglacial period of about 130,000 years ago when sea levels were 15 to 20 feet higher, when temperatures had been thought to be about 1°C warmer than today. Then we go back to the “early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today,” as NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato explain in a new draft paper, “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
It would seem that your time would be better spent ‘correcting’ the utterances of those on your side of the debate such as Joe Romm and Watermark, rather than complaining to WUWT about things that Hansen does actually quote.
Ps I agree there are all sorts of wild claims out there (by both sides), which is why I like to cite real papers-I have defended Hansen AND MANN here sometimes when incorrect information was being used, but it seems we both agree that Hansen has said what I paraphrased
tonyb
Tony, thanks for your reply.
You mention
I made no claim other than;
However, in the reference you quote as evidence of your assertion, Hansen actual states :
which puts even the lower bound of your quote of Hansen at the time scale of a century. The upper bound, which reflects the equilibrium sea level for a 2-3 C temp increase, is obviously much further out according to Hansen.
Do you now realize that your quote is not an accurate reflection of what Hansen actually stated ?
Now do you want to argue that the “equilibrium sea level” of 2-3 C temperature increase is NOT 25 meter (80 feet) ? Or do you want to argue Hansen’s “quantitative example” which leads to 5 meter sea level rise over the timeframe of 1 century ?
Rob
I am baffled as to what you are now arguing. Hansen believes there will be a very substantial sea level rise which he set between some very broad bands set over a loose time scale. I quoted this and you quoted this back. How on earth is it not accurate to quote Hansen himself and his sidekick Joe Romm?
He puts the expected sea levels as rising by meters as a result of a 1 degree c increase. He expects much more temperature rise than this and for feedbacks to kick in
Section 4 here
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen.pdf
clearly talks of 5 meters in a century time scale but that he believes the problem is not non linear. Where is the ambiguity in this?
Talking about the Hansen and Sato 2011 paper a reader at Skeptical Science comments
“The estimates here seem very conservative for sea rise. They basically look at a very linear extrapolation. Hansen and Sato see a non linear rise- with as much as a 4-5 meter rise by 2090. During the Eemian interglacial when global temperatures where at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius warmer then today, sea levels were about 4 meters higher then present.’
Here is the paper;
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Hansen talks of 5 meter rises, the non linear expectations he has and in the abstract in the first paragraph talks of multi meter rises this century.
Perhaps you had better explain what you believe Hansens expectations to be and justify the sort of increases you believe he is forecasting?
tonyb
Tony, I am baffled as to what you are now arguing
I know it may feel a bit chilling to be faced with your assertion, so let’s go through this one more time :
You stated :
I argue that this statement is misleading, since Hansen did not put the timescale at “decades”. Centuries, maybe, for a 16 to 80 feet sea level rise. But Hansen definitely did NOT put the timeframe “at decades”.
Second, You mentioned :
This paper does NOT mention “that 80 foot figure”, so again you are misleading.
Then you mention :
Which is rather baffling for you to state this, since we already know that Hansen did NOT claim a 16 to 80 feet sea level rise within a time scale of “decades”. Tony, maybe you have been spreading misleading statement so often that started to believe you own deceptions. So, I’m sorry to burts your bubble here, but your arguments have more credibility if they are consistent with the evidence you present. You can thank me later.
Rob said
To which Willis quoted half the “salon” interview with Reiss and then stated :
If you think Reiss is lying, you can take it up with him. Hansen’s only objection to Reiss’s report of the conversation was he (Hansen) said 40 years, not 20
That’s misleading, Willis. Reiss admitted that his question to Hansen included the condition “assuming that CO2 doubled”, a condition which you (conveniently) appear to ignore.
Besides, I specifically asked for a reference to what Hansen actually said (in Reiss’ book), rather than what a casual interviewer reported on what Reiss may have said in his book on what he thinks that Hansen said in a casual interview some 23 years ago.
Rob
I think you are conflating what Willis and I have said.
Read the literature you have been cited where I specfically note a section. Hansen cites with approval a number of studies showing the likely effects of melting ice. He puts the effects as being from 5 meters to many times that. He uses a number of different timescales.
I have agreed with you that there is a lot of disinformation out there but then you seem to want to spread your own.
Why don’t you tell me in your own and Hansens words what sea levels he believes will come about by the end of this century, and on a slightly longer time scale if we continue on our current co2 path?
tonyb
Rob Dekker says:
November 8, 2011 at 1:36 am
… “assuming that CO2 doubled”
———————————————
So thats another thing Hansen got wrong, the expected exponential rate of CO2 level increase in the atmosphere.