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.
Rob
I am sure we all have much better things to do than hang around a dead thread, especially as you seem to have conceded the 5 metre rise argument. Without meaning to sound snarky can I suggest that you write an article along the lines of;
“What james Hansen REALLY said about sea level rise”
If you post its availability in the appropriate ‘stories’ place in the header bar and alert me by posting to this thread, I will personally follow up with Anthony Watts to ask if he would be willing to host the article. I am sure it would be very popular.
best regards
Tonyb
Tony,
You are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself by avoiding responsibility for your own words.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that you made misleading statements ?
Once again, this is what you wrote in your comment 788749 dated November 5, 2011 at 10:15 am:
which you re-emphesized in your next post :
Which I pointed our is misleading, since Hansen did not mention a time scale of “decades” for this sea level rise. Centuries, maybe, but not “decades”.
After you realised you made a mistake, you start making excuses :
“Ps I agree there are all sorts of wild claims out there (by both sides), which is why I like to cite real papers”
Your claim was NOT from a real paper. You made it up all by yourself.
and
“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.”
Apart from the fact that Hansen did not quote anyone here, it is rather arrogant of you to ask me to correct others (like Joe Romm, who is not even posting here), while YOU are the one attributing claims to Hansen which you made up all by yourself.
and
“but it seems we both agree that Hansen has said what I paraphrased”
which is utter nonsense, since you did not paraphrase Hansen when you wrote the blockquote above. You made it up all by yourself.
and
“I think you are conflating what Willis and I have said.”
Sorry dude. I did not, and Willis has nothing to do with your statement. You made it up all by yourself.
and
“Read the literature you have been cited”.
I did, and your statement (blockquote above) is NOT there. You guessed it : you made it up all by yourself.
and plenty of other ways to dodge responsibility of your own statements, such as :
“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”
Why don’t you tell us why you make up statements that you attribute to Hansen ?
and
“I am sure we all have much better things to do than hang around a dead thread”
Then why do you continue to do so ?
and
“I suggest that you write an article along the lines of;
“What james Hansen REALLY said about sea level rise” “
Hansen said what he said. No need for me to ‘tell you’ what I think ‘he believes’.
Let me make another suggestion : You write an article on what YOU think that you said that Hansen said about sea level rise.
Because as shown above, it seems that once you realize that your own statement is misleading or incorrect or worse, that you want to blame others for making the statement : Hansen, a blogger, Joe Romm, some unspecified ‘paper’, or even Willis. I’m surprised you don’t suggest that I am the one making the statement I block-quoted above.
Dude, take some responsibility !
Rob
You said
‘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. ‘
That is when I joined the discussion when I said.
“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. “
Here again is the article where you say he made no reference to this;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf
He cites ’Global mean temperature three million years ago was only 2-3°C warmer than today (Crowley 1996; Dowsett et al 1996), while sea level was 25 ± 10 m higher (Wardlaw
and Quinn 1991; Barrett et al 1992; Dowsett et al 1994).’
Hansen believes that if its business as usual it will be 5.5 degrees warmer (presumably Fahrenheit) which is the figure needed, according to his citation, to create sea levels 25 m higher. In fact only 1 degree more is needed if the logic in the article holds. (see ref below for citation of this 5.5 degree figure.)
Hansen clearly said a 5 metre rise by 2090- that is decades not centuries. It is quoted in the Hansen and Sato 2011 paper I linked to earlier and which interestingly you now seem to be backtracking about by throwing up semantic niceties and wordy smokescreens over the timing of the 80 foot reference.
Hansen said this in 2007 at a conference ;
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/feb/08/the-scariest-man-on-the-planet/
“Since then, Hansen’s prognostications have grown considerably more dire. “In the past five years, it’s become clear to me that the problem is a lot more urgent than we thought,” he (Hansen) said Monday night. Unless major steps are taken to curb the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, he is “99 percent certain” that the world as we know it will be forever changed. “If we go down the business-as-usual path, it will be 5.5 degrees warmer by the end of this century, warmer than it’s been in 3 million years,” he warned. “If you go back to that time, the sea levels were 80 feet higher.” Should that happen, he predicted, hundreds of millions of people would be homeless, the world’s weather patterns would be violently scrambled, and about half the planet’s species would become extinct.”
The Commentator said
“And once again, Hansen has moved far out ahead of the curve. Fuelling his alarm are two factors. It used to be that paleo-climatologists thought the hottest the world had ever been was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than current temperatures. Hansen says new research shows that the hottest temperature was actually 1 degree Celsius warmer than now, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. And when the world was a single Celsius degree hotter, he said, the geologic records indicate the seas were 85 feet higher than they are today. The record indicates we’re now within just one degree of the warmest period on the planet. In other words, whatever wiggle room we thought we had has just dramatically tightened.”
We have got ‘business as usual’ so that is presumably why we have two predictions for 5 metres and 80 feet.
Here is Hansen again writing in the Royal society journal of 2007 which was reported on here by Dave Lindorff
“Hansen, saying that recent evidence of melting at the poles shows ice melts much differently, and faster, than once assumed, warns that a few degrees’ rise in temperatures in northern regions could produce much worse results. While he says we could see a resulting rise in sea levels over this century of several meters (bad enough), he also warns that with only the widely predicted 5-6 degree Fahrenheit rise in this century that the IPCC has predicted, the earth could see these two huge ice sheets collapse almost entirely over the next century, with a resulting sea rise of some 80 feet or more. “
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_dave_lin_070705_flash_21_us_media_igno.htm
Here is the actual article;
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
“The imminent peril is initiation of dynamical and thermodynamical processes on the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets that produce a situation out of humanity’s control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur. Climate forcing of this century under BAU would dwarf natural forcings of the past million years, indeed it would probably exceed climate forcing of the middle Pliocene, when the planet was not more than 2–3 degrees C warmer and sea level 25m 10 m higher (Dowsett et al. 1994). The climate sensitivities we have inferred from palaeoclimate data ensure that a BAU GHG emission scenario would produce global warming of several degrees Celsius this century, with amplification at high latitudes.’
Read the Hansen papers-read his references within them. Read the Romm article. Are you still saying that your claim that Hansen made no prediction of a 3 metre sea level rise to be correct or that he has made no references to 80 foot?
It seems to me that the alarmism is coming from your side with such as Watermark, Joe Romm and Dave Lindorff together with numerous other green campaigning organisations
Hansen seems quite happy that his ultra alarmist views are peddled around the blogosphere by his own cohorts. If he wants to put over a more measured view perhaps he ought to write an appropriate article ‘clarifying’ his position and ensure this gets the same publicity, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation where you are trying to defend a position that is indefensible.
When I write part three of my sea level rise series I will no doubt refer briefly to Hansen, but I am interested in proper factual information not wild estimates. However if you believe he has been misrepresented in face of all the evidence why don’t you put the record straight by writing an article?
tonyb