Looking back at a recently published paper on ancient sea level and CO2, and noting that the most recent paper by Dr. James Hansen seems to be getting the cold shoulder, I thought it would be a good idea to have a look at both.
First, Hansen’s paper, which isn’t peer-reviewed yet, but is generating some media attention, and some of it isn’t so good. It is titled:
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming is highly dangerous
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Hearty, P., Ruedy, R., Kelley, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Russell, G., Tselioudis, G., Cao, J., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Kandiano, E., von Schuckmann, K., Kharecha, P., Legrande, A. N., Bauer, M., and Lo, K.-W.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059-20179, doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015, 2015.
Abstract. There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations. We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge. Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms. We focus attention on the Southern Ocean’s role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes. This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range. We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth’s energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.
Hansen’s paper is now open for public comment.
Meanwhile, Climate Depot reports: Former NASA lead global warming scientist James Hansen’s new sea level rise scare study gets ‘cold shoulder’ from climate establishment.
- Warmist AP climate reporter Seth Borenstein said he ‘would not cover’ Hansen’s paper.
- UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth calls Hansen’s study ‘rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios’ and based on ‘flimsy evidence.’
- NYT’s Andrew Revkin: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”
- Even Michael Mann admits Hansen’s sea level rise estimates are ‘prone to a very large ‘extrapolation error’
Marc Morano comments:
“James Hansen’s new paper ratcheting up future sea level rise numbers is consistent with the new strategy of the global warming activists. Given that current sea level rise rates are not alarming, the only way climate activists can claim anything is ‘worse than we thought’ is to make more dire predictions of the future.
Simply making scarier predictions of the future in order to alarm policymakers is not ‘good science.’ Claiming that climate change impacts are ‘worse than we thought’ because predictions are now more frightening is a well worn playbook of the climate movement.
Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.
It seems even some of the worst offenders in alarmism, including Michael Mann, consider Hansen’s claims “over the top”. This may in fact be the first paper in recent times that Hansen has submitted that has a strong possibility of being rejected for publication. It appears he’s lost his mojo with his peers when they say thing like in the bullet point list above.
I’ll remind readers that one of Hansen’s most alarming predictions about sea level rise in New York City has yet to come to pass, looked to be falsfied in 2011, and so the goalposts got moved into the future, just as Morano says. Readers may recall our story about the claim Hansen made about the West Side Highway in New York city being underwater by now, due to sea level rise, visible from Hansen’s office at GISS.
I wrote then:
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.
When we reported the story in 2011, saying Hansen’s prediction was falsified, it made some waves, and lo and behold, the reporter comes to the rescue of Hansen, by moving the goalposts out another 20 years.
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 original story, I quoted from Reiss here in the Salon interview.
But here’s the thing, whether its 20 or 40 years, it makes no difference. Hansen’s claim of the “The West Side Highwaywill be under water.” is still falsified by actual data.
Let’s look at the tide gauge in New York and see what it says.
Here’s the PSMSL page that is the source of the above graphic and data 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:
At 11 inches per century, there’s a real problem with Hansen’s claim of sea level rise covering the Westside Highway. He’s betting on acceleration of sea level rise due to increased CO2, but the trend is clearly linear, not exponential.
Additionally and inconveniently, this peer reviewed paper from the Journal of Coastal Research says: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”
The results are stunning for their contradiction of AGW theories which suggest global warming would accelerate sea level rise during the last century.
“Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for each of the 57 records with results tabulated in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2.”
…
The near balance of accelerations and decelerations is mirrored in worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)
As of this update in July 2015, we’re 27 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 point over the WestSide Highway, near the famous landmark and museum, the USS Intrepid:
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.
According to the actual data, after 27 years, we’ve seen about a 2.6 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 going have to kick it in high gear and use a higher octane climate driver than CO2 if he’s going to get there.
Problem is, here it is some 27 years later, and people still drive that highway today without the use of Jet-Skis.
Of course when you live in a modeled world of the future, rather than the real world of the present, anything is possible.
Now for part two.
I recently highlighted the press release and paper from Dutton et al. titled “Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods” in this WUWT story:
Claim: 20-foot sea-level rise in our future (except nature isn’t cooperating so far)
They had this graphic to ramp up the correlation fear of rising CO2 and rising sea level:
In that story there is this interesting statement that appears on the AAAS/Science website about the paper, emphasis mine:
ADVANCES
Interdisciplinary studies of geologic archives have ushered in a new era of deciphering magnitudes, rates, and sources of sea-level rise. Advances in our understanding of polar ice-sheet response to warmer climates have been made through an increase in the number and geographic distribution of sea-level reconstructions, better ice-sheet constraints, and the recognition that several geophysical processes cause spatially complex patterns in sea level. In particular, accounting for glacial isostatic processes helps to decipher spatial variability in coastal sea-level records and has reconciled a number of site-specific sea-level reconstructions for warm periods that have occurred within the past several hundred thousand years. This enables us to infer that during recent interglacial periods, small increases in global mean temperature and just a few degrees of polar warming relative to the preindustrial period resulted in ≥6 m of GMSL rise. Mantle-driven dynamic topography introduces large uncertainties on longer time scales, affecting reconstructions for time periods such as the Pliocene (~3 million years ago), when atmospheric CO2 was ~400 parts per million (ppm), similar to that of the present. Both modeling and field evidence suggest that polar ice sheets were smaller during this time period, but because dynamic topography can cause tens of meters of vertical displacement at Earth’s surface on million-year time scales and uncertainty in model predictions of this signal are large, it is currently not possible to make a precise estimate of peak GMSL during the Pliocene.
Even with the uncertainty factors, a conclusion we can draw from that is that CO2 at present day levels seemed to have no significant effect on sea level rise in that era.
It is clear from that statement that despite no help from greenhouse gas levels, past interglacial periods had higher temperatures than the present and sea levels were significantly higher. The new study in Science magazine shows that in previous interglacial periods, some shorter than our present interglacial, sea levels were as much as 20 to 42 feet higher than during the present interglacial period, and temperatures were also consistently warmer, yet carbon dioxide levels were the same as or lower than they are now, suggesting atmospheric greenhouse gases have not been drivers of significant sea level rise during that period.
Like with this scary claim from National Geographic even if we do see sea level rise continuously, we may very well be into the next ice age before it happens:
I wrote then:
How long will it take to reach the NatGeo waterline in the cover photo?
The mean sea level trend is 2.77 millimeters per year. At that rate we have:
65.2 meters = 65200 millimeters / 2.77 mm/yr = 23537.9 years
That’s right, 23 thousand 500 years!
A new ice age will likely be well underway then, dropping sea levels. The water would never get there. That’s assuming the statue still exists there at all. Ironically, Liberty Island is a remnant of the last ice age:
Liberty Island is a small 12.7-acre island in New York Harbor. As a remnant of last glacial age, it is composed of sand and small stones deposited as the glaciers retreated.
Even if we believe that sea level will accelerate to 2 or 3 times that rate (as some proponents would have us believe), we are still looking at thousands of years into the future. At a 3x rate, we are looking at 7846 years into the future.
And then there’s this story I wrote back in 2010, Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history
It was about this image:
Turns out it will take about 26,000 years to reach that level.
As I said in the title, the fears of catastrophic CO2 driven sea level rise seem to be little more than a spurious correlation in the minds of alarmists.
I think that climate is influencing ocean levels and, in the same time, oceans are influencing climate. To see a bit from the past century’s sea levels and ocean evolution, you can go to http://www.arctic-warming.com and read a bit about the way the oceans have influenced climate in the past and how they can influence the climate in the future.
I think that the oceans are a part of the climate.
It would be more correct to say that climate is part of the oceans.
That’s good.
He could have just got it peer reviewed on the backscratching merry-go-round.
Credit where credit is due. Such crowd-sourced wisdom can only improve the paper.
It won’t be easy to find anyone to review it. It’s 121 pages and parts of it are plain loony.
Heck, the abstract was loony.
Well the old gentleman is getting on in years now.
“At 11 inches per century, there’s a real problem with Hansen’s claim of sea level rise covering the Westside Highway. He’s betting on acceleration of sea level rise due to increased CO2, but the trend is clearly linear, not exponential.”
There is no trend IN THE DATA.
remember your briggs.
Data have no trends, The data is just the data.
you MANUFACTURE trends by ASSUMING a data generating process. you create trends by “applying”
a model to the data and asking the question ‘does this model fit the data” is this model consistent with the data.
In a nutshell Hansen is arguing this. he is arguing that the data generating process— THE PHYSICS– underlying sea level rise is NOT linear, but rather is non linear.
of course if you look at any exponential rise you can pick out a segment that looks linear, but hansens argument is that the underlying process is non linear and consequently we will see rapid increases
in the future.
You cant argue against this by showing the linear segments. You have to go deeper.
Put another way. the fact that you can fit a linear model to past data tells you ZERO about the future.
you need more argument than that.
all that said.. I dont buy Hansen’s work but it does focus research.
And you need more argument than what you offered. Hansen can’t claim that the underlying process is non-linear without offering evidence to support this claim. This article is showing evidence to the contrary. If Hansen doesn’t like it, then he can offer evidence of his own.
Additionally, the article then goes on to say that, regardless of trend, Hansen has only 13 years for his “adjusted” prediction about the West Side Highway to be accurate.
I find it funny that this is the best thing you can say about Hansen’s preposterous predictions – it focuses research.
Steve,
Your comments are not unreasonable, but many others that worry about AGW often use linear or assumed accelerating temperature and sea level increase projections without any basis from data. There is NO evidence that CO2 is causing a significant portion of any rise the last century (it surely has some effect, but not known, and very likely small), and no significant or unusual rise the present century. Why do you think there is so much worry by CAGW supporters about the “pause”, that makes them try to make it go away. How do you plan to “go deeper” to better understand this issue? Do you trot out models, which have shown no skill. There is no need for, or available “more argument” by skeptics. Future data will tell the story. Hansen’s data and analysis does not focus anything but his opinions.
“There is no need for, or available “more argument” by skeptics. ”
I got more argument. Plenty more.
Just let me know how much you need .
And I suspect I am far from alone.
“You cant argue against this by showing the linear segments. You have to go deeper.
Put another way. the fact that you can fit a linear model to past data tells you ZERO about the future”
We don’t have to argue against anything. The burden of proof is and should be on those who say the future will be different from the past.
Amen brother, amen.
Mosher:
Mosh, I’d like to applaud you for producing a rare reasonable post. Of course, I’d also like to point out the ‘data generating process’ is not physics, but climate models and assumptions used to produce temperature data products. Ideally we would be doing science, but for now we’ll all have to wait.
you MANUFACTURE trends by ASSUMING a data generating process. you create trends by “applying”
a model to the data and asking the question ‘does this model fit the data” is this model consistent with the data.
If you are talking about climate science you have this ass backwards.
You MANUFACTURE data by ASSUMING a model. You build the desired trends into the MODEL. You discard ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS that disagree with the MODEL.
of course if you look at any exponential rise you can pick out a segment that looks linear, but hansens argument is that the underlying process is non linear and consequently we will see rapid increases
in the future.
If it is non-linear you are more likely to see decreases in the future. Otherwise, the system would be inherently unstable. The analogues in classical physics and chemistry are Newton’s Law of Inertia and Le Chatelier’s Principle.
“it does focus research.”
No it doesn’t.. It is so bogus as to be anti any focus what-so-ever.
Even you can’t pretend to sell it !!
The purpose of a “non linear model” is to be able to get a claim accepted or published without having to support it with pesky observations. This way an endless stream of speculative junk science can make it into the literature. If Mosher doesn’t get that, he is being intentionally thick.
Aaahhh, so post quantum, you create the trend by identifying it.
Sorry, the trend is just the trend. You can manipulate it by choosing the start and end points. Everything in between those points is just the data.
When does Hansen suppose this non linear response will be noticeable? It’s always some day in the future. It seems that the levels he predicts would be evident in the data by now. He apparently believed this as well considering his early predictions.
Mosher said
“you MANUFACTURE trends by ASSUMING a data generating process. you create trends by “applying”
a model to the data and asking the question ‘does this model fit the data” is this model consistent with the data.”
When you do so the answer is clear. The data shows NO sign of any acceleration as predicted by the model. The analysed trend line is clearly linear. The test YOU suggest clearly falsifies the theory put forward.
Well when you have evidence that the linear historical model has morphed into a non-linear model, let us know. Until then I think the linear model for future outcomes is a good bet.
Not sure how someone blowing hot air focuses research.
Sorry Steve, while you have good points in theory. In practice, your point would only be valid if this was an insignificant subset of the data such that the change in slope cannot be seen. Given the wide length of time and space of these measurements that seems highly unlikely. So while your points are technically correct, they are non-applicable.
Now, Is is technical PROOF that sea level rise cannot accelerate. No. That’s not possible in the real world.
However, it is a statement that it has not noticably accelerated. Either sea level rise is not accelerating at all or it is happening on such an small scale that it is not apparent.
So either Hansen’s prediction is completely wrong (his mechanism is wrong) or just mostly wrong (it’s orders of magnitude slower than what he is claiming). Personally, I lean towards the second because the foundation seems decent. However, it is horribly wrong to claim that sea level is rapidly accelerating becasuse we can plainly see that it is not.
Look on the bright side.
Increased habitats for marine life & sea birds.
Cant wait to see Al Gore’s new house outside Santa Barbara under water!
From the abstract (Caps mine):
‘We focus attention on the Southern Ocean’s role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, WHICH IN TURN IS A TIGHT CONTROL KNOB ON GLOBAL CLIMATE.’
Trouble is, the knob is so ‘tight’ it just won’t turn!
Here is a video that shows ALL of the PSMSL tide gauge data (as of 2009). Maybe I’ll update to the 2015 one of these days, but it won’t make much difference.
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/sea-level-data-set-to-music-yeah-thats-right/
You can stand find people in tie-dyed t-shirts carrying signs at a street corner protest who is sure there is an obvious acceleration in sea level rise. Take a look at the video and look for this acceleration. I can’t see it.
This is precisely the kind of material that falls out the end of the digestive tract of large male bovines when zealots take over science and play to the [scientifically] uneducated masses
It is almost as if Hansen wants to discredit the CAGW media campaign by repeating/rehashing outrageous claims.
Dr. James Hansen played the same role in the “CO2-Global-Warming” hype as Dr. Ancel Keys did in the “Saturated-Fat-Heart-Disease” hype, which begins to crumble just now. Watch the following highly interesting analysis of the latter topic and you will find lots of quite striking parallels of these two “zeitgeist” ideologies:
https://youtu.be/nhzV-J1h0do
It is interesting how studies that went against the “consensus” on saturated fats and cholesterol were either ignored or didn’t even get published. It seems that a scientific consensus that forms too soon, before there’s enough data to form a solid conclusion, is very hard to overturn. Even when later studies contradict earlier conclusions, it is usually the new studies that get questioned, not the consensus. History seems to be repeating itself in this regard when it comes to climate change research. So I have to ask, when science advances to the point of being able to study some question or idea, are the first conclusions ever right? Are there any examples where the first scientific consensus was correct right out of the shute? Or does it almost always take years of scientific research to overthrow the early consensus and get it right?
Amen.
Excellent to see someone saying what I have been saying for years.
When I was in graduate school, I wrote a paper on the flaws in the Ancel Keys studies, and several of the studies cited in this presentation, and pointed out their flaws. Particularly, I made a point of drawing attention to the conclusions of the studies, and their lack of correspondence to their own data.
My supervisor was not impressed, and I had my knuckles firmly wrapped.
Besides which, this vindicates my eating at “The Heat Attack Grill”.
But the broader issue here is that this is yet another example of the corruption of science. Whether it be “The Great Global Warming Scam” or the diet/heart disease scam, it is frightening how some “scientists” will suspend ethics and go with the flow in order to get those grants.
How much of what we think is “settled science” is really BS?
Actually, Hanson’s purpose is to get alarmist headlines in the press. It doesn’t matter whether his claims can be supported – it’s just to put the kernel in the public psyche. This is why the advantage in the court of public opinion is always in the warmist camp – particularly with the near total support of the media complex – it only takes a second to make an outrageous accusation, while it may take weeks, months, or years to responsibly disprove it – and the average person doesn’t know the difference anyway. And even if his statements are discredited, all he has to do is simply repeat them – as he is doing now – and you get a whole new batch of headlines.
I couldn’t agree more, unfortunately… 🙁
Sounds like you’re saying that Hansen is the Donald Trump of climate.
Even with the uncertainty factors, a conclusion we can draw from that is that CO2 at present day levels seemed to have no significant effect on sea level rise in that era.
Am I right in thinking that , if sea levels rise significantly, and cover a large enough portion of the land, CO₂ would rise as a result of less being taken up by plant-life?
I would not say that. Evaporation (along with outgasing of CO2) from the oceans would increase, leading to further greening, leading to further decaying, leading to organic CO2 increase. The increase in CO2 due to warming would stay ahead of uptake in CO2 leading to increased greening. Generally speaking, the Earth would be in an increased productive stage.
Probably not, as plankton would increase & sequester more Carbon.
The major flaw in the whole analysis is the assumption that things are driven by CO2 and CO2 alone. The models are far too simplistic. We can not even figure out how total atmospheric CO2 responds to CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
In any complex system, for instance the stock market, there are thousands of factors that interact with each other that may or may not cause changes in stock prices. However, to pick one, such as corporate tax rates and claim that it is the sole determinant of changes in stock prices would be ridiculous.
I do not imagine that the climate system is so simplistic that it can be described by a single factor. We already have ample empirical data that would contradict such a hypothesis.
Bottom line; science must have predictive value. If there is no predictive value, the assumptions are incorrect.
Also, are there not consequences for shouting “fire” in a theatre that is not on fire? Hansen has been doing this a long, long time now.
James Hansen is a Relativistic Chicken Little.
He used to shout:
the sky is falling, the sky is falling
Now he is shouting:
the sea is rising, the sea is rising
There just may be a few of the elite of the political power about to be forced into a change of position on this worlds largest lie.
“We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming…”
Sorry, but ice in contact with the ocean means it is floating on it.
Even if all of it melts, there will be no rise in sea level.
Donald Trump made just one media comment on “Climate Change” and the ones running for Pres. on both sides ran for cover as they covered up their private parts knowing he is ready to kick them where in hurts.
They all know it is a lie. For sure the Democrats as they invented it, paid for it, gain power with it.
But once one with Trumps money and media savvy takes it on and confronts them all with the truth of the size and danger of the lie. They will see the loss of votes, the loss of power, the loss of office, and then they will cut and run.
Like a bolt of 1,000,000 volt lighting in the top of their heads it will come.
He will most likely use the Earth First, Green Peace, and others to goad the want to be Pres. D’s and R’s to come out in support of Climate Change rules, laws and energy cut backs. Once any of the D[s or R’s come out full or even half way supporting this lie, Trump will bast them out of the deal.
He has the money, the resources and ego to just lay it all on the line.
He and his advisers can see that it will gain him another 10% or more in the polls and they will go for it.
Hansen was just interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on CNN GPS program. The point he made regarding the source of sea level rise is Antarctic melt.
Did anyone keep a copy of his “Boiling oceans” Powerpoint presentation? I can’t find it. Last time I looked, I could find some of the slides, but the boiling oceans ones had been disappeared.
When his former sycophantic media stooges are too embarrassed to cover it, I guess that’s a new low for him.
I read a couple of articles recently by Seth Borenstein on the AP Big Story page and he took a shellacking in the comments section. The paid trolls couldn’t even rescue him. Maybe he’s seeing the light ??
No slides, but clear Hansen video with boiling oceans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8
Our man in New Zealand , Richard Treadgold, just posted an article regarding that boiling seas quote: http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/07/yes-dr-hansen-says-our-oceans-will-boil/comment-page-1/#comment-1351981
From the abstract:
How the f@ur momisugly@k do they know there were ‘extreme’ storms? That’s editorialising rubbish. Hansen couldn’t stick to the facts even if the were attached with super-glue.
There is some geomorphic and paleontological evidence for at least one hurricane (or tsunami) stronger than any during the present interglacial from Jamaica, Bahamas and Bermuda.
However it (or they) occurred during MIS 5a-d, after the end of the interglacial (MIS 5e) when Earth was sinking into an ice-age. Which is only to expected as it is temperature differences that drive storms, and at that time lower latitudes were still warm, while glacial ice was already growing at higher latitudes.
I would suggest that a gigantic flood would be more likely to be caused by an earthquake induced tsunami than a hurricane. In other words, nothing to do with weather or climate.
And there is the rub..
Higher sea levels, extreme weather.. assumed..
BUT THER WAS LOWER CO2 !!!
Hansen and always has been a zealot and an extremist and his logic is impaired by it. It’s embarrassing and astounding that this man was put in charge of anything let alone GISS. But the politically motivated will always cover the buts of the terminally wrong to forward their agenda. Just as FDR deepened and worsened the depression and who’s policies prevented a recovery, but is considered a hero still today, Hansen will never change his view, no matter the evidence presented to him and his acolytes will continue to quote his rubbish. He is no different than the other lunatic standing in the street with a sandwich board proclaiming that the end is near.
Yes, Paul Ehrlich is a good example of someone who has been wrong for nearly 50 years but is still ‘revered’ as a some kind of ‘guru’. The left are deluded.
When “missing heat” Trenberth distances himself, its a clear sign Hansen has jumped the shark– just like Wadhams has. Their predictions have failed and are subject to increasing derision. The increasingly irrational desperation (remanufactured ocean data, bumblebees, this absurd paper) is an unexpected benefit of the run up to the looming Paris failure. Even the Pope gambit is backfiring, as Cardinal Pell has commented.
The original Hansen claim was CAGW accelerated SLR. It didn’t. Essay Pseudoprecision. So warmunist fear mongering morphed to abrupt future SLR from ice sheet collapse. But Greenland’s geology prevents it, EAIS is stable and gaining mass, in WAIS both Ronne and Ross (ANDRIL program) proved stable. RIgnot (Hansen’s co-author here from NASA JPL) turned attention to the Amundsen Embayment and PIG, raising alarm last year. He and NASA JPL previously estimated that if the entire Amundsen Catchment basin ice was lost, it would result in about 1.2 meters (4 feet) of SLR. Despite the NASA PIG alarm PR, Rignot’s 2014 PIG paper actually surveyed the entire catchment. The interior half is fairly stable, and a portion is even gaining mass. Essay Tipping Points in ebook Blowing Smoke has all these details.
The two papers attempting to show abrupt SLR during the Eemian (MI5e) are geologically flawed; the one from Australia also contains proven academic misconduct. Essay By Land or By Sea.
The Westside Highway was demolished in 1989, the one you see today is not the one that existed at the time of that interview.
Did they elevate it higher above sea level or just widen/improve it? Or both?
I don’t know new York but there’s a good description here of the road changes. I don’t know of it affects the specific piece under review
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Highway
Tonyb
The old one was approved in 1927, construction began in 1928, closed in 1973, demolished in 1989. It was called the West Side Elevated Highway, and was 6.1 meters above the ground level to allow truck access to the docks along the river. If referring to it, Hansen was even more wrong than the post calculations would indicate.
Anthony, the West Side Highway is elevated above the elevation you show in your picture. You are showing the highway in the area of 42nd Street – which is at ground level. The elevated portion of the highway starts around 60th Street. The GISS offices are on 112th Street. So, it can certainly be argued that sea level rise would need to be even higher than what you are estimating in order to cause a traffic problem around 112th Street – depending on when that section was actually elevated.
I should have started out saying, “…a portion of the West Side Highway is elevated above…”
GISS offices are at the corner of 2880 Broadway and 112th. If that’s where Hansen works then he was looking at the Henry Hudson Parkway, not the Westside Highway.
According to Google Earth, the parkway at that point is 13 feet above sea level. There’s a bike path between the parkway and the river.
http://www.biking-in-manhattan.com/uws2/IMG_1391wh224-HudPath108.jpg
Source for above image:
http://www.biking-in-manhattan.com/u210-96125green.htm
Phil. injected just enough information to cloud the issue. Skillful.
Is the new one higher or lower than the old one?
The Highway at 112th street was not demolished. It was and is not elevated. It’s presumed to be about 10 feet above water level, but that’s a guess. I’ve e-mailed both Hansen and the nyc Highway or Transportation dept. for the data, but neither has responded.
If the rubble was dumped into the ocean then Hansen was correct!
When “the land is sinking” is mentioned as a factor in local sea level rise I’ll listen to what the alarmists have to say. It will be a cold day in hell when they mention any of the 20 other factors affecting local sea level change. Why is it only skeptics know It’s a lot more complicated than increased ocean volume?
Hansen has been on the outside looking in since he rejected wind and solar renewable energy strategy in favour of nuclear. He’s right about the strategy in that nuclear is the only real way to decarbonize our electricity use, but it’s off message.
The fact he’s being shunned can tell you a lot of who the masters of the movement are, and what their goals are. Hansen’s comments about nuclear threatens their subsidy gravy train.
FOLLOW THE MONEY. Excellent read is “CRAPITALISM” Liberals Who Make Millions Swiping Your Tax Dollars, by Jason Mattera NY Times Bestseller read in a couple of nights—compelling available at Amazon about $15. Jason also wrote OBAMA ZOMBIES–haven’t read.
CAGW is the perfect refuge for rogues and nut cases of every persuasion.
Fear, Greed and Fame fuelled by a potentially unending money supply by tapping into new taxation resources.
It makes “reds under the beds” AKA the cold war and “the war on terror” pale into insignificance as a form of political control.
Bringing down this wall will require constant and continued effort from sane minded individuals united in their contempt for this “fear game”.
Keep up the good work, I reckon we are reaching a real “tipping point” in the wholesale rejection of this odious game..
I think we should be more concerned about sharknados. Supposedly there was a third one last week (once is accident, twice is coincidence…).
Right on! And because of Sharknados, I’ve suddenly come to fear Prognados, like when Progs all jump the shark, then have to ride it out in a Sharknado of unprecedented power! Or we’ve all seen when some Progs gather to attack, say, Capitalism then run around screeching like rabid Parrots, while managing to give true rabid Parrots a bad name. But if they all mass together, it’ll be worse than we ever thought!
Let’s have fun!
Dr. Hansen: Let’s assume a multi-meter rise in sea level accompanied by “Mega Storms” will happen.
Would you please rush to President Obama and ask that the spent Uranium rods be moved to Yucca Mountain, before it’s too late. These rods are still have 10% to 15% hot stuff in them.
You can remind him that the Washington Court of Appeals issued a rare Writ of Mandamus ordering the President to follow the law. We were taxed more than $10B for the construction. The good citizens of South Carolina and Washington led the suit. They agreed to let their land be used to develop nuclear weapons as well as nuclear energy. Here in Delaware, we are within 80 miles of two tidal influenced nuclear sites. Heading north, the most densely populated portion of our country are at risk.
So, Dr. Hansen: move that Uranium. Go get them!
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/d-c-circuit-obama-cant-ignore-legislation-just-because-he-doesnt-like-the-policy/
PS. Attorney & Professor W1ll1am Jacobson’s “Legal Insurrection blog is a great resource for lay folks like me.
Regards,
Actually, Hansen should’ve qualified “crime” with “violent,” in which case there have been studies that show a relationship. So let’s look at the trend in violent crime…
The rate has fallen every year since at least 1994, the earliest year for readily accessible FBI data, and the 2013 figure was about half the 1994 rate.
By Hansen’s reckoning, summers in the U.S. must be getting colder.
… or more people have AC.
… or more people have AC.
Irrelevant to Hansen’s reckoning.
The trend in Jun–Aug high temperatures in Central Park from 1989–2014 is −0.3°F. Record high was July 3, 1966.
Correction: trend is −0.-0.3°F per decade.
One more try: −0.3°F per decade
Personally I think Trenberth is pretty rational about the climate. His “missing heat” is missing — it hasn’t appeared as warming, it has disappeared into the deep ocean. If true (open to discussion, but in Trenberth’s case I really think it is honest discussion) it’s great news. The deep ocean can warm by 0.001 or 0.002 C/year for a long time before it is an issue. As Bob points out repeatedly, the warming trend in SSTs is underwhelming, and the atmosphere and land surface temperatures are in some way tied to that.
Hansen, OTOH, IMO long ago lost any semblance of scientific objectivity. If there is one single person to blame for the entire climate “catastrophe” meme, it is him. Five meter SLR, increased drought and flood and storm all at the same time, boiling oceans — there is no horrific picture, no matter how irrational or extreme, that he has not invoked to push his personal fantasy of disaster onto a hapless world. And nobody in the mainstream media ever calls him on it.
Even now he’s not being called on it. They’re just ignoring him as an embarrassment and hoping nobody notices. Hansen is to the (legitimate) warmist case as Dragonslayer are to the (legitimate) skeptical case.
rgb
I cannot cede your position on Trenberth. In regards to the Boston snow he was quoted at WaPo as saying:
“Heavy snows mean the temperature is just below freezing, any cooler and the amount would be a lot less,” adds Kevin Trenberth, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Warmer waters off the coast help elevate winter temperatures and contribute to the greater snow amounts. This is how global warming plays a role.”
This is patently false. The snow was the result of extremely cold conditions which resulted in amplification. Boston meteorologists melted the snow to determine its water content and found the moisture content to be mundane. It was the cold PERIOD. To claim otherwise is either propaganda or incompetence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/10/what-the-massive-snowfall-in-boston-tells-us-about-global-warming/
“It was the cold PERIOD. To claim otherwise is either propaganda or incompetence.”
I go with propaganda. Trenberth is not an incompetent man, it is that he has only a nodding acquaintance with ethical behavior.
I would concur that it was propaganda, as Michael Mann contributed a quote about the SST around Cape Cod being 21 degrees F above the anomaly and not providing a scientific rationale for that – he just let it be implied that the warmer waters were due to an extra CO2 molecule per 10k atmospheric molecules.
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/24167100/wet-snow-vs-dry-snow-there-is-a-difference
If we are to expect that this basic fact about snowfall characteristics is outside the skills and knowledge of a “climate expert” at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and lead author for the IPCC, it raises questions about the entire climate science field.
Where’s he get 15 co-authors for this drivel?
Good afternoon Professor Brown,
“Hiding in the deep ocean.” and, “open to discussion.”
The discussion needs a good starting point. How do you explain the heat taking the plunge? Trenberth’s efforts leave me cold. It is very difficult for me to accept that the themohaline circulation is capable of transferring that amount of heat, particularly with the ice extents around Antarctica in recent years. Also, you believe in the Second Law, so you’re not susceptible to the type of reasoning that led Professor Trewhall to predict that the heat would bob up from the ocean deep, and melt Antarctica in 10 years. You have a way with explanations, so would you like to give it a try?
Eda, +10. A further observation. ARGO did not detect Trenberth’s missing heat before it snuck into those thermodynamic depths from which it could never emerge anyway. That leaves two logical possibilities. ARGO is so sparse as to be useless catching those sneaky Trenberth decending heat vortices (so useless generally?). Or Trenberth was just stupidly wrong. A layman’s jury suffices to decide this question beyond any reasonable doubt.
Hell Trenberth has no good reason to assert that we even know the heat is missing. We do not have the accuracy to assert that as a fact. It is likely gone to space.
Ristvan,
With respect to Argo being usless … no. Argo will be able to tell us where the “backwaters” and the “eddies” are because the majority of the instruments will end up in these areas.
Argo will be able to tell us the approximate temps of these areas.
Question is, will the collected data be extrapolated appropriately when it then used for its intended purpose.
“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts… for support rather than illumination.”
― Andrew Lang
Hansen really let it all hang out when he preached that increasing CO2 from burning fossil fuels, carried in boxcars to the incinerator, would bring about “the destruction of Creation!” I liked the sound of it so much, I didn’t know whether to say Amen, BS, or Sig Heil!
With the comments like Trenberth and Mann, Hansen et al. must be saying, “Et tu, Brute?”
After all Hansen et al. give the “dagger” for their slaying in the lead sentence of paragraph 2.1: “Eemian sea level is of special interest because Eemian climate was at most ∼2◦C warmer than pre-industrial climate, thus at most ∼1◦C warmer than today.”
Ah Ha! Since the Eamian, global temperatures have decreased (a decreasing, i.e. cooling trend)! The 150 year statistical anomaly of +0.6 ◦C, which has such a great uncertainty as to render the “+” as moot and unfounded, means their supposition of a +2 ◦C, by humanity, is a fantasy. The Earth is cooling and there is no God to save them; not even the UN or the Vatican.
Perhaps it was Hansen’s death wish to put the dagger in his paper. Now, the public assassinations will begin as in the Roman Senate, lead by Marcus Junius Brutus, during the Roman Optimum.
On the floor with his life bleeding away, Hansen might look to Trenberth and Mann and say, “How could you! I made YOU what YOU are! Your careers belong to ME!”
Ha ha What Fun!