James Hansen’s latest doomsday paper falls flat on its face, grounds his ‘flying boulders’

James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS published a new study Tuesday March 22nd in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, claiming global warming, sea level rise, and severe storms, could be (paraphrasing) “worse than we thought”. Just a 2°C rise would see the world suffering through massive sea level rise and super storms that would hurl giant boulders to the tops of mountains:

According to the Washington Post and activist writer Chris Mooney:

Standing atop a 60-foot cliff overlooking the Atlantic, James Hansen — the retired NASA scientist sometimes dubbed the “father of global warming” — examines two small rocks through a magnifying glass. Towering above him is the source of one of the shards: a huge boulder from a pair locals call “the Cow and the Bull,” the largest of which is estimated to weigh more than 1,000 tons.

While there is a suggestion in the scientific literature that the boulders were simply left behind after surrounding rocks eroded away, Hearty and another leading Bahamas geology expert, Pascal Kindler of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, agree that the boulders are older than the surface upon which they rest and, thus, probably were moved by the sea. Even the tourist placard near here takes their side, saying the ocean “lifted them atop the ridge.” But exactly how it could have done that is another matter.

Hansen's Flying Boulder on the island of Eluethra. Image from Washington Post

Hansen’s Flying Boulder on the island of Eluethra. Image from Washington Post

Added: Here is a view of both rocks.

cow-and-bull-eleuthra

Via Panaramio image by Mamedov Ruslan

Hansen’s theory has drawn some criticisms from the scientific community.

A scientific study conducted on the cow and the bull, for example, concludes the boulders could be the last remaining remnants of karst towers, or not, but definitely not deposited by tsunamis

karst-cow-bull-hansen

Source

Hansen’s doomsday paper suffers from another major flaw: it depends on a slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which transports warm water from the tropics to the North Atlantic where it warms the atmosphere.

Hansen and his co-authors list…

“slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region”

…as one of five impacts just 2°C of global warming would have on the planet.

In an article in The Atlantic, Hansen is quoted as saying:

At the heart of the findings is his argument that cold meltwater from Greenland is weakening an important internal current in the Atlantic Ocean, called AMOC, that keeps weather across the entire planet temperate. Once this current is shut down, then the Atlantic near the Arctic will stay cold and heat will build up in the southern latitudes, creating the potential for extreme weather of mythical proportions.

“I believe we are already watching the beginning of this cooling, southeast of Greenland,” Hansen says. “In that case, extra cooling and extra warming along the United States East Coast are not natural fluctuations. The warm water is the reason that [Hurricane] Sandy retained hurricane-force winds up to the New York City area.”

“Have we passed a point of no return? I doubt it, but it’s conceivable,” he adds. “But if we wait until the real world reveals itself clearly, it may be too late to avoid sea-level rise of several meters and loss of all coastal cities.”

Where Hansen falls flat:

Hansen’s big problem is a new paper published yesterday and first highlighted on WUWT demonstrates that despite all the warming seen in the last century, the AMOC remains unaffected:

Study: There is no real evidence for a diminishing trend of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

In an email from the lead author Albert Parker, he noted:

[The AMOC is] apparently quite stable and not following the anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Indeed, the data supports this:

amo_timeseries_1856-present-1[1]

It looks like Hansen’s “flying boulders” are grounded, at least for now.

The AMOC shutting down due to global warming was the main scientific plot point in the science fiction movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. In the movie, after the AMOC shut down, it spawned tornadoes in Los Angeles, floods in New York City and caused the Northern Hemisphere eventually freeze over. But remember, this is climate science fiction, not real attributable effects that would hold up under scientific scrutiny.

A number of climate scientists have been highly critical of Hansen’s new study, both in the 2015 version that was initially rejected, and the present one. Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry called the initial paper a “backfire”.

According to the website Climate Home, UK Climate scientist Peter Thorne said the 2015 draft report was “highly political” and questioned whether or not the paper should have been submitted to the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Thorne also said Hansen was “unprofessional” and “grossly inappropriate.”

“I expect this kind of thing of my kids,” Thorne told Climate Home. “I do not expect this behaviour to be out there in the public domain for all to see amongst leading scientists in the field.”

Even normally “say anything” Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press declined to cover the Hansen paper:

borenstein-on-hansen

Ouch! (h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue)

This article in The Atlantic indicates the process to get the paper peer-reviewed was a contentious one. Hansen had to tone down some of his rhetoric:


As Revkin noted Tuesday, the peer-review process was not for naught: The final paper was altered, sometimes significantly, from its July 2015 draft. For example, while last year’s version of the paper claimed absolute certainty in its title

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2° C global warming is highly dangerous

—this year’s final version scales that language back:

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2° C global warming could be dangerous

Now the paper has at last been peer reviewed and published. The Times and thePost both covered its release on Tuesday, the latter with the headline: “We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future.”


 

Then there’s the “hottest year ever” and the Hottest February ever according to NASA GISS and Gavin Schmidt:

Gavin-hottest-ever

Assuming that data is correct, and not just mostly artifacts of NASA GISS processing and other problems, where’s the big uptick in severe weather that is supposed to accompany such things?

torgraph-big[1]

Hansen even made a video, trying to look like Indiana Jones in the process:

Maybe James Hansen is just having another “Jor-El episode”, as Steve McIntyre noted back in 2007:


 

It’s as though Hansen, who grew up in the 1930s and 1940s, has a Jor-El complex: Jor-El being familiar to young boys of a certain age as Superman’s father who (per Wikipedia):

“was a highly respected scientist on the planet Krypton before its destruction. He foresaw the planet’s fate, but was unable to convince his colleagues in time to save their race. Jor-El was, however, able to save his infant son, Kal-El, sending him in a homemade rocketship to the planet Earth just moments before Krypton’s demise.

 


At least Hansen doesn’t dress up in tights like some other “climate scientists”, such as “Supermandia”.

Note: within about 15 minutes of publication, this article was updated to fix some broken links, and the reference to AP’s Seth Borenstein added.

134 thoughts on “James Hansen’s latest doomsday paper falls flat on its face, grounds his ‘flying boulders’

  1. your statement that hansen’s latest analysis falls flat on it face is accurate of course but it implies the weirdness that at least one of his previous analyes does not. tony heller has proven otherwise.

    • Thanks, chaam. Please put in a link to whatever you are referring to regarding tony heller, as your meaning is totally and completely unclear.

      w.

      • Mark March 24, 2016 at 12:32 pm

        Does he not mean that this is not weird, all of Hansen’s claims are junk science?

        Mark March 24, 2016 at 12:32 pm

        ..as proven by Heller

        Mark, perhaps you are right … and perhaps not. Me, I’m curious just what chaam is referring to regarding the work of Tony Heller, so I’m still waiting for his citation.

        w.

      • So I missed the part where Hansen exited stage left, and Willis descended by parachute to center stage.

        How long was I asleep ??

      • It’s strange how when people mention god, the devil’s always right there wanting to know what’s going on.

        Willis Eschenbach
        March 24, 2016 at 11:36 am

        Thanks, chaam. Please put in a link to whatever you are referring to regarding tony heller, as your meaning is totally and completely unclear.

      • Willis I am not stating Heller has proven anything, I was paraphrasing Chaam.

        Chaam was referring to Heller’s blogs about Hansen’s litany of failed doomsday prediction papers.

        Observation has proven Hansen wrong on that count, Heller is just repeatedly pointing it out, that’s how I see it, I don’t think Chaam was referring to any particular claim, it was a general statement.

        Chaam did almost encrypt his comment though but I fear you spend too much time looking at data and are becoming a machine :P

      • Mark March 24, 2016 at 11:51 pm

        Willis I am not stating Heller has proven anything, I was paraphrasing Chaam.

        Chaam was referring to Heller’s blogs about Hansen’s litany of failed doomsday prediction papers.

        Thanks, Mark, but I fear that your speculation as to chaam’s meaning is … well … meaningless to me. You don’t seem to understand my request. It is a request to chaam to link to what he was referring to. I fear you know no more than I do what that link will be. Only chaam knows that.

        Thanks for your attempt at assistance, but in this one the only person that can answer as what chaam actually means is chaam himself.

        w.

      • george e. smith March 24, 2016 at 12:55 pm

        So I missed the part where Hansen exited stage left, and Willis descended by parachute to center stage.

        How long was I asleep ??

        Clearly, not long enough. Another fifteen minutes and I would have taken over the entire Western world …

        w.

      • i didn’t say it very well. sorry. what i mean is that “falling flat on its face” is not a highly unusual property of hansen’s climate papers. many such failures have been documented in the steve goddard blog over the years.

    • Best not to accuse all NASA scientists of bias.

      Dr. Hansen has had the same data as everybody else, but he interprets the data differently. Just as some people regard a bottle as half-full, others see the same bottle as half-empty. Dr Hansen perceives the climate system as dangerously vulnerable to human activity. For a long time now observers have questioned his objectivity.

      James Hansen, formerly of NASA, used ocean heat content among other variables to derive his estimate of global radiative imbalance. In 2011 Hansen and others revised their 2005 estimate of global energy imbalance from 0.85 Wm-2 to 0.58 Wm-2 based on later data.

      Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.

      Loeb et al and Stephens et al. accepted Hansen’s estimates but for more recent years they revised his figure to +0.5 Wm-2. This appears consistent with the decline in positive global energy imbalance that seems to have been falling for a decade or so. It is also consistent with correcting errors in earlier estimates.

      Assuming Hansen’s 2011 estimate of +0.58 Watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere was the best estimate possible of the net energy imbalance at the TOA (top of the atmosphere) for the period of his study, how does this estimate compare with other estimates based on NASA data?

      Is +0.58 Watts per square meter significantly different from zero?

      My understanding of the work of others, including NASA scientists and colleagues in public and private organizations, is that +0.58 W-m2 at TOA is not significantly different from zero.

      In Stephens et al. (2012) The authors pointed out that the net energy balance is the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, two numbers around 240 Wm-2. The authors pointed out that the energy imbalance from ocean heat content (OHC) was only 0.6 Wm-2. Since both numbers (incoming and outgoing) have errors, the figure 0.6 divided by 480 is the relevant statistic.

      Radiation at the top of the atmosphere has to be measured with a precision and accuracy of about 0.1 of 1%, about one part in a thousand, something that these NASA scientists and their colleagues state is not possible with present technology.

      “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm-2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm-2 inferred from the rise in OHC. The uncertainty in the TOA net energy fluxes, although smaller, is also much larger than the imbalance inferred from OHC.”

      (Order of magnitude means “ten times”. OHC means ocean heat content. TOA is top of the atmosphere.)

      Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696.URL: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

      In Loeb et al., the authors worked to correct errors in the standard values for: TSI (total solar insolation); albedo (Earth’s reflectivity); the ratio of Earth’s surface area to the disc presented to the Sun (taking into account the flattening at the poles and the fuzziness at the terminator); and other parameters following the one-dimensional Goody and Yung model found in all atmospheric physics textbooks.

      The Loeb paper discusses estimates of albedo from which it is clear that the fluxes of incoming and outgoing radiation are approximately equal at around 239 W-m2.

      The paper states that the possible range of TOA flux is Minus 2.1 to Plus 6.7 Wm-2, Based on well-established physical theory, the instruments tell us that net radiative flux is either positive or negative.

      In effect the paper states that the Earth is either radiating more energy than it receives or less energy than it receives. The Earth is either warming or cooling. That is why it is unfair to accuse all NASA scientists of bias.

      Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.
      URL: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf

      Updated from this earlier paper: Loeb et al, Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget, Journal of Climate, 2009.

      Simple arithmetic shows that incoming flux (240 W-m2) is almostt 500 times bigger than Hansen’s estimate of +0.6 W-m2 radiative imbalance. However both incoming and outgoing fluxes have measurement errors. So the relevant base for estimating the error is almost 1000 times bigger than the estimated imbalance.

      For Hansen’s estimate to be credible his estimate of change in ocean heat content would have to be accurate to one tenth of one per cent.

      From the perspective of his colleagues who assessed radiative fluxes, a one per cent error in estimating albedo (Earth’s reflectivity) would generate a difference in net radiative imbalance of plus or minus 1 W-m2,

      Albedo would have to be estimated within the range of about plus or minus 0.002 to achieve the accuracy needed to confirm Hansen’s 2011 estimate of radiative imbalance. (The standard value for albedo used in most calculations is 0.300 (30% of solar radiation is reflected without producing radiative heating.)

      Conclusions:

      Ocean heat content indicates a slight radiative imbalance that cannot be confirmed by direct measurement of radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. The best scientific instruments are not sensitive enough to measure the radiative fluxes with enough precision and accuracy to determine if the net radiative imbalance is negative or positive or zero. As Stephens et al stated, “The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm-2.”

      I conclude that James Hansen is able to see climate disaster no matter how much uncertainty his former colleagues have revealed exists in the estimates of net radiative imbalance derived from the satellite data.

    • It is fascinating to think of where this is all going because it is clear that it is all basically fantasy of James Hansen. Why does he have so much power to influence? When will the package of absurdities he screams come back to bite him? When does the public finally realize the folly?

      1) He gave a speech in congress early and predicted warmth and it came. This made him a legend.

      2) He made some initial progress in plausible science and made some conclusions based on false assumptions.

      3) He worried about the environment something we all care about but he thinks he cares about more.

      4) He was head of NASA earth science which ultimately gave him the ability to help guide a billion dollars in funding for earth science researchers.

      5) This created a lot of fanatical followers.

      6) They took the position it was safer to be overreaching with the knowledge of the science than to be cautious so they conspired to construct things to create the maximum alarm.

      7) As the data and the science diverged they chose a different approach than the scientific method and tried to argue they only looked for verification not nullification. Many verification’s mean nothing in science. It is the nullification’s that are important because they point out the theory is wrong and needs work. By emphasizing verification they kept the science alive beyond its possible plausibility.

      8) As the data and the science diverged they sought to modify the data over and over.

      9) In spite of repeated failures people continue to believe because it has become more of a religion than a science.

      Like a religion this kind of thing is incredibly hard to break up. Environmental magazines routinely publish article after article that are scare stories that never come to pass. The environmentalists don’t care. What they care is that they can use science to scare people. So, they know these things are wrong I believe but keep spouting them because they know people want to believe these things and ignore the repeated failures. This is not science. They don’t care. It’s about saving people not about science.

      Until something bad happens because of this the believers will continue to believe it. Pragmatists who like to say they believe it will do nothing but continue to fund the bogus science but do nothing tangible otherwise or token measures. This is where we are now.

      What bad could happen to jolt people to stop believing this?

      1) The economy could be so bad that people are really forced to make some cuts to the science and admit tacitly if not openly that the science is bogus. This has started to happen with the firings of the Yale climate team and the Australian team.

      2) The other party could come to power and defund major parts of this

      3) The climate could take a nosedive downward in temperature making it too obvious the science is bogus.

      4) A court case could uncover wrongdoing and with the right judge possibly result in an indisputable criminal conduct that will lead to further unraveling

      5) Some professors could come out and admit they lied or conspired with Hansen and/or Mann to concoct science.

      6) Science could come out which irrefutably destroys major parts of the science or models

      Maybe you can think of other ways this would end but my original thought that the science community would police itself and create a scandal like has been done in other sciences occasionally is lost. This community for now is still enamored with the billions in funding provided by the government and the startups trying to leverage climate fear to billions in profits. People sometimes say: “Follow the money.” In this case the money is all on the side of the deceivers. They get lucrative professorships, published papers, billions in grants, startup seed funding and stock market free money in the billions. Some brothers from Texas who spend a few million are accused of a grand conspiracy while the public is milked for billions of wasted money going after models that never work, study after study and trip after trip to do stupid science and go to conferences, give speeches. The money is clearly on the side of keep your mouth shut and keep the party line. It’s gonna get really hot. Already 35% of climate scientists and meteorologists openly admit that they believe CO2 has very little or nothing to do with rising temperatures in the last N years. Pick your N.

      There is a court case against Mann that if settled could cause some disruption in the firmament but I suspect environmentalists will find a way to spin it and it won’t effect things enough.

      Due to many factors it is unlikely temperatures will go down soon. They will likely climb about 0.3C to 2100 but it is apparent that as long as there continues to be these scientists they will find a way to spin and comment on the data to look “dangerous.” They make more and more outrageous statements as the science is proven wrong over and over. They come back to scare stories like there will be a tipping point a common technique used in environmental publications forever. There are lots of people who believe man is evil fundamentally and want to believe we are doing bad things all the time, that evil people roam the earth seeking to despoil it. They are a religious cult and will not be dissuaded by mere facts.

      This leaves the economy weakening, other party comes to power and science could be discovered. I believe the economy will stay weak for some time but not enough to change much more the funding. So, if the republicans come to power they could change the funding equations but it will take quite a sustained effort to do this because they will not only have to cut the budgets but replace the people who make the decisons because they will fight back.

      The last point (6) new science could be the last reprieve but I think that has already happened. As articles at WUWT have pointed out the failures of this science are beyond refutation at this point. I believe the final nail in the coffin for me was the discovery of more sea floor fissures and the periodicity of ocean eruptions and gravitational phenomenon being linked.

      In my opinion this science rested on 2 legs. 1) The fact that temps went up when Hansen originally said they would. 2) the paleo record and the inability to explain ice ages without large CO2 sensitivity. The discovery of large effects from the mantle through the sea floor if further verified and made more concrete would destroy the high sensitivity of CO2 argument and lead to much lower estimates of sensitivity.

      I have an article on this at : https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/category/climate-change/ under the title “Another big failure”

  2. Well the North American continent has all kinds of big boulders, much bigger than these ones, that are sitting on top of places they have no business being. They clearly were carried there, not so much by a slightly less alkaline ocean; but by a slightly less dense but solid ocean of glacial ice that once swept all over parts of the North American Continent. When global warming finally hit the glacial ice and melted it, these boulders were unceremoniously just dumped wherever they were at the time.

    G

      • Works for me. The glacial errotics I saw on that PBS program, were mountain sized but clearly just sitting on some place they didn’t belong.

        G

      • cephus and george – these can not be glacial erratics. The Bahamas were not glaciated. Neither can you invoke ice-rafting during glacial times because the sea level would have been even lower than today when there were ice rafts drifting around the mid Atlantic.

        Doesn’t mean that Hansen is right. As someone who looks at rocks for a living, I would say if you find a number of these rocks in the same general area, it would be reckless to assume that they came from far away by any means of transport. They are probably of local derivation. Have a sedimentologist look at them (if they have karstic features, they must be carbonate sediments).and tell you what they are, and she could probably give you a good idea of how they got where they are.

      • The boulders are eroded remnants of more continuous laminated units. (ie. in situ). Drs. Mylroie and Carew have done a lot of work in the Bahamas. You can find several relevant papers on the Gerace Research Centre website.

    • Could these deposits (rocks) not be part of a moraine or even an end moraine (the farthest advance of a glacier)? In brief, as a glaciers push forward, as they are advancing pick up debris including rocks (of any size). Once the glacier begins to melt, it deposits whatever it is carrying in huge piles. These piles are known a moraines. They are very common at the base of Mt. Washington, for example.
      This explanation is not meant to be condescending in any way but merely to briefly explain one possibility.
      My apologies if this is deemed off-topic.

    • When I saw the title “Stoneado” I was expecting to see giant reefers. What a disappointment.

    • Piper Paul,

      That (and this article) reminds me of one of my fave Onion articles:

      Jor-El was, however, able to save his infant son, Kal-El, sending him in a homemade rocketship to the planet Earth just moments before Krypton’s demise.

      Or, as the Onion reports:

      Al Gore — or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al…

    • Thank you for this it’s brilliant gave me a great laugh especially when I went and looked at the trailer which starts with a caption
      If you like Trash, please subscribe.
      Could be a subtitle for the journal that has just published Hansen s study.

      James Bull

  3. The usual Hansen stuff, restricted by his own globull data fudging and narrative. The price is alway paid later when you have to prove the unprovable!

    • Unlike the rest of the climastrologists, he forgets to put his predictions far enough into the future so that they are difficult for those living today to check on them.

      • Yeah right. He keeps living long enough to see his predictions not come true! Laughable, but still getting published.

  4. …. “extreme weather of mythical proportions ….”.
    My dictionary says “Mythical – relating to myths, fabulous, untrue.”
    Well, he should know all about myths.

    Possible typo: after the AMO values graph, “A number OF climate scientists”?

  5. In the UK, a newspaper called the Daily Mail really went to town with a freelancer’s article on this paper by Hansen et al (where al is quite a large number). Lots of vivid illustrations, and of course an attention-getter of a headline: ‘New York and London could be underwater within DECADES: Scientists say devastating climate change will take place sooner than thought’. See: http://cliscep.com/2016/03/23/extreme-climate-alarmism-takes-off-at-the-daily-mail/ for a post about the article.

  6. Can any one confirm that that Hansen also cites that famous documentary Sharknado in this new paper?

    • An Australian senator (Greens of course) thought that a TV drama show was a documentary. Poor Old Sarah Sea Patrol.

  7. If Hansen was right about anything people would be swimming in battery park in NY, the passing road would be under feet of water. Being wrong about may things makes me think that he is wrong about this also.

  8. “..Have we passed a point of no return? I doubt it, but it’s conceivable…”

    I thought he was one of the folks who said we were past the tipping point by now?

    • I thought he was one of the folks who said we were past the tipping point by now?

      We have gone by so many tipping points there has to be a rest stop coming up soon.

    • We’ve tipped so many times we’ve done a complete 360 !!! Right back where we started !! D’oh !

  9. I am starting to think that this old poem of mine
    just does not go far enough in describing Hansen

    OLD DEATH TRAIN HANSEN
    ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH

    More holy than thou
    He warns you of Venus
    The only thing now
    That hardens his penis

    He rants at the crowds
    A coot with the hypers
    His mind in the clouds
    A load in his diapers

    He quotes from the Greens —
    We work for the many
    (Diversity means
    The colors of money)

    He quotes from the Reds —
    Consensus is dictum
    (Good socialist heads
    Are all up one rectum)

    A fascist he cries
    This Goebbels of weather
    The truth is in lies
    The bigger the better

    So just like a skunk
    His sight is alarming
    His science is junk
    There’s no global warming

    Eugene WR Gallun

    • third verse change

      He quotes from the Greens —
      We work for the many
      (But really that means
      They’re after the money)

      Eugene WR Gallun

  10. This was pretty thoroughly debunked when Hansen first started marketing the draft. Amazing that it finally got published even in revised form, because is already debunked in its core assumptions and models. 52 pages of discredited CAGW memes. Will likely stand alongside Mann and Rahmstorfs AMOC silliness as amongst the low points of warmunist pal reviewed ‘science’.
    Last years draft marketing looked like an attempt to shift the arbitrary 2C COP21 target down to 1.5C, as all the newer Observational sensitivity studies come in below 2 (1.5-1.8). As Curry pointed out at the time, the effort via the draft backfired.

    • One wonders what size rocks get thrown out of the sea at 1.9C. 1.8C? Or do they all just start attacking Beach goers magically and precisely at the 2C mark? What a joke!

  11. How in the name of secure psychiatric wards is Hansen still allowed out!? He’s March hare mad, madder than a box of frogs and burbling at the moon insane. He needs urgent help. Why isn’t a squad of paramedics sitting on his chest pumping tranquilisers into him? What is wrong with the world?

  12. [snip – I don’t agree with Hansen, but that is an uncalled for comment – clean up your act -Anthony]

  13. Here we find a difference of opinion regarding the origin of the Bull and the Cow boulders. Certainly one more plausible and congruent with the Law of Parsimony. Hansen long ago swallowed the Koolaid and remains a prisoner of his stilted constructs. Francis Bacon describes a predilection for confirmation bias in Novum Organum. An interpretation by (Hall n.d.) reads: “Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion.” Much like Judas, Hansen can be viewed as more misguided than malevolent, in that he is only reports what his mind tells him to see.

    Unfortunately, (for him) his “boulder theory” is somewhat less than settled science as noted by this excerpt from (Boardman, Carew, Mylroie, Panuska, Sealy, & Voegeli 2002):

    “We regard the “boulders” to be residual karst towers, which explains the presence of the caves. This reinterpretation indicates that AAR whole rock data from eolianites are not a reliable age indicator. The purported oxygen isotope substage 5a/5e contact cited by Hearty occurs between overlying eolianites and underlying intertidal calcarenites. Hearty identified a reddish rubble layer that appears to separate the two units as a paleosol. Hearty interpreted whole-rock AAR data from the eolianite to represent deposition during the time of substage 5a. We found that the red rubble unit is not laterally extensive, and is only associated with dissolution conduits developed in a swale along the eolianite/intertidal calcarenite contact.”

    References

    Boardman, M., Carew, J., Mylroie, J., Panuska, B., Sealey, N., & Voegeli, V. (2002). THE GEOLOGY OF ELEUTHERA ISLAND, BAHAMAS: REINTERPRETATION OF MEGABOULDER AND OXYGEN ISOTOPE SUBSTAGE 5A DEPOSITS. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_39280.htm

    The Four Idols of Francis Bacon. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2016, from http://www.sirbacon.org/links/4idols.htm

    • Ouch! My reference is outdated as noted in the original article…the “karst tower” theory has been retracted by Mylroie. Bad research on my part.

      • I thought I saw something about a retraction in the article above, but I don’t see it there now. In any event, geology is full of enigmas, the earth doesn’t trouble to leave us a complete record of everything she does. It says that there are 8 of these mysterious boulders, and as i said further up the thread, that will lead you first of all to inferring a local origin, and only when you have exhausted all conceivable local origins, assume that they came from somewhere else. Especially when you can’t invoke a glacier.

        Somebody will probably come up with a reasonable theory, if they want to take the trouble to study the matter further. Not me though, I don’t to Phanerozoic very well.

  14. But Hansen means well, so that excuses any minor little errors in scientific reasoning or fact. Just keep up the mantra–he means well. /sarc

  15. Seeing “#deniers” on Mann’s tweet, it makes me cringe. It is emotion and defence mechanism born of the Reptilian remnant of our brain. When the conscious mind expresses two opposing expressed beliefs and no logical resolution to the conflict in the conscious mind it kicks off a primitive response, “deniers” is a primitive response

    Basically he knows his science is shaky and won’t stand up to scrutiny (would dissolve on contact with real science) so an aggressive, arrogant, elusive, obstinate and obtuse wall is put up to any criticism of the science, constructive or not, supported by evidence or not.

    It’s textbook self denial. He knows he is wrong but cant admit it, and certainly cannot openly debate it for fear of losing, which would be catastrophic for his ego.

    The only way Mann can survive is to keep the debate at mud slinging, avoiding open public debate at any cost.

    I’ve read so many papers these past 2 years, and I must say, while I am no scientist I am pretty handy with linguistics and how language is used, Chomsky among others has done some excellent work in that area even if I disagree with some of the other stuff, no filter bubble for me thanks.

    The language used in papers is bu!!shit obfuscation and nonsense, the most appalling I’ve read in while was the ramblings of the Bicep2 study that claimed to have found gravitational waves.

    Hansen’s paper, the first draft was not even subtle, it was pure snake oil sales, stating as absolute certainty 2c rise would be catastrophic, with no evidence whatsoever, others try much harder to obfuscate what are pure guesses that they try mitigate with this and that trick or claim, often using other uncertain hypotheses to support their claim.

    I am not qualified to judge Mann as a scientist, but I can judge him as a man, based on his actions. He appears to be socially underdeveloped, “crying “#denier”.. I mean am I insane or is that acting like a petulant 9 year old school boy? Really? My 5 year old son doesn’t even respond that way to things he doesn’t want hear!

    Sometimes you wonder if humanity is going backwards, the only things that seem to advance are ways of cheating and killing each other, this is a world rigged for soulless sociopath psychopaths.

    rant over

    • Actually, Mann is a better man than scientist… so that tells you what kind of scientist he is.

  16. Yeppers. Here’s a big boulder which was deposited during the Eemian warm period – and then cut in half during the last ice age. Looking forward to it being picked up and moved miles further inland, oh, around the year 2060, or so.

  17. The guy needs to put on a different thinking cap; or at least send the one he has to the cleaners.

  18. Anything Hansen is not worth the pixel use on my phone. To think he actually ran NASA GISS is horrifying, but his replacement is even scarier even if he is a coward as he has displayed so many times when confronted with difficult situations.

    We are DOOMED I tell ya! DOOMED from the climate lies that want to put us back in the stone ages.

  19. Are you sure they’re not the “Cock and Bull” boulders?
    As for the hat, I don’t think it’s an Indian Jones fixation, rather than a follicle situation:

    • Not mine; I’m much prettier than that; and I can see my toes; heels too, so that ain’t one of my hats.

      g

    • ““Flying Boulders” would be a good name for a band”

      A hyped up version of the Rolling Stones.

      they could rehash that song.. “we will, we will rock you”.

  20. perhaps some “boulder holders” could be re-purposed to become boulder catchers to save us from this dreaded scenario!!!

    Cheers,

    Joe

    • Well after reading this WUWT thread James Hansen might be a Boulder but wiser man !

      g

  21. Just a 2°C rise would see the world suffering through massive sea level rise

    Presumably this “massive sea level rise” would be due to expansion of ocean water and more ice melting. However at the south pole, the trend is down since UAH started. So that leaves Greenland since floating ice at the north pole cannot cause a sea level rise.

    But the article also says this:

    Once this current is shut down, then the Atlantic near the Arctic will stay cold

    So exactly what will cause this “massive sea level rise”?

  22. The most interesting part of the story is Seth Borenstein’s response. When true believers start having doubts about what they publish, it’s a sign they are worried they’ve backed the wrong horse.

    • Here is what Seth says about it in more detail:

      Seth Borenstein
      03.24.2016
      My problem with your Pacific Standard piece is that it’s way too broad brush. You paint an entire journalism field with a few examples. First, that’s bad journalism. Quite bad. Second, it’s just not true. At The Associated Press where I am a science writer (along side the stellar but modest Malcolm Ritter), we always do our own version of peer review with scientific studies. We consult with outside experts. That’s just a must. So I don’t believe we wrote about any of your examples of bad studies. For example, I decided not to write the latest study by James Hansen on catastrophic climate change because five of the six outside scientists _ yes I got six outside experts, but that’s only because I sought out nine _ had problems with the study. That convinced me it wasn’t worth writing about.And Hansen has the big name and institution behind him.

      http://undark.org/2016/03/24/revisiting-the-pacific-standard-critique-of-science-journalism/

  23. “But exactly how it could have done that is another matter.” That is the problem, isn’t it? Reality intrudes.

    • Reality never intrudes upon James Hansen. He floats serenely on his own personal cloud in some remote mental phase space completely and forever inaccessible to individual H sapiens of normal intellectual faculties.

  24. James Hansen is long past going round the bend.His theories have been disproved and now he doesn’t even try to be semi-scientific in his bleats.

  25. Isn’t it time to call scientists and the IPCC out on this claim: “Just a 2°C rise would see the world suffering through massive sea level rise and super storms.” As I read the temperature anomaly chart above, In February 2016 the globe reached 1.7 degrees above preindustrial temperatures, so we are just 0.3 degrees away from catastrophe? Has someone started building a modern Noah’s ark?

  26. Nobody else seems to have said it so here goes- this latest Hansen work is not about the cow and the bull but just another cock and bull story.

    Sorry, sorry,……………………sorry.

  27. The boulders are the last remnants of an eolean (wind-blown) dune deposit.
    The deposition occurred in the pleistocene. All caves (kars) are found within these pleistocene dunes.
    They are undercut by erosion, and a sea level that was about 1 m higher 8000 years ago. Once cave walls are sufficiently eroded they might tumble sideways, hence the severe tilt of the bedding in one block. The other one, on the left appears to be still in its original position. Dating eolean deposits is tricky, since the material is older or nearly same age as the substrate. The dune deposition by itself is of course younger than the substrate. If the right block tumbled sideways, the clay deposit at the base might be younger than the block.

  28. One more cry of the wolf. There is a quota, on those “cries” (I still believe), and one day, the shame will arrive.

  29. I don’t agree with the Hansen’s view of the world, however I do not think he is stupid or trying to present something that he knows is a falsehood.
    I have looked at number of data sets from various sources (often quoted here) and what I I found is that the ‘fundamental periodicity’ of AMOC is slowly increasing, manifested in a progressive rise in its delay to the other related events. This could have been interpreted by Hansen & co as a weakening of the AMOC.
    Reason for this (I think) is relatively simple, with the warming of the NA ocean the overturning is moving further north.

  30. I often wonder how Hansen was hoisted to his position. Clearly he’s not made of the same stuff upon which he stands.
    Theory based on, ‘that’s all I can think of’ to come.

  31. Our long retired astronomer, hybrid climate scientist takes out a hand lens and examines a shard of the rock! Every geologist is having a laugh about this.

    Hansen was showing some neurotic deterioration in his latter years on the job. He was expecting things to move to disaster proportions by 15 years ago and he got hit with the dreaded “Pause”. By now, he would have expected having to abandon his 2nd floor office in New York because of flooding in the street.

    People behave differently to psychological stress. Most of those with the “climate science blues” fell into melancholy and lost interest in their work. A half, or horrors, whole career spent on phlogiston theory will do this to you. Some are moved to teary floods as they fight to resist the dawning of reality tormenting them from inside their brains (this is the real, longstanding, meaning in science of the term ‘DeNile’. Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna investigated this and it is recognized as part of the coping mechanism that has to be rooted out in addiction, grief, etc.). In Climate Blues, avoidance has commonly taken the form of saying they are depressed because they see the world coming to the end and they can’t make people see it. Their dreams are tormented by spotted butterflies and yellow toads and who knows what.

    Some take a more aggressive or hysterical turn. Anger and hyperbole are their tools to dampen the thoughts fighting for their attention in the soft gray tissues. 100 ton boulders flying to the mountain tops is so extreme a ‘symptom’ that it is very telling of the integrity of the publisher that the paper got published. Even Seth Borenstein’s seemingly boundless faith and devotion couldn’t stretch around that one.

    From a logical viewpoint, what does invoking flying boulders from the early Holocene do for a theory of warming that is supposed to be unprecedented! What has a Tsunami got to do with CO2 and temperature? Also, as a physicist/astronomer/mathematician, here he has two 5 story boulders flying through the air and both perching beside each other on the edge of a cliff. What are the odds of something like that? They don’t mention several thousands of others gathered in the valley below and decorating the beach. Nor is there any sense of strength of materials here. These karst carbonate rocks would have crushed themselves and rubble would be traceable from the point of impact over several thousand square metres. The ‘shards’ he talks about are from spalling of the surface of the so-called boulders because of hydration and wetting and drying.

    A once sober minded lukewarmer who now does drive-by irksome cryptic commenting and belittlement shows that even lukewarmers can, in DNile become embittered and hurt when nature hauls the rug out from under them.

  32. “father of global warming”
    Largely on the basis of his claim that the 400K excess of Venus’s surface temperature over the gray body temperature in its orbit is due to a “runaway” Green House Gas effect — all without either testable quantitative enabling equation or experimental demonstration of the effect .

    • And of course when instruments landed on Venus and proved him wrong: that classical gas mathematics using the law of thermodynamics for calculating – go figure the temperatures of atmospheres – works perfectly fine calculating the temperature of Venus, Earth, Mars – Hansen doubled down on stupid and kept denying the truth to the point that to this day you see it said in educational books that ”there is a runaway green house gas effect on Venus.”

      No there’s not.

      Steve Goddard legendary climate blogger calculates the temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars, with no problems whatsoever in his famous W.U.W.T. posts ”Venus Envy” and ”Hyperventilating on Venus.”

      It’s right there in the comments of those posts where Harvard physicist came in and told Goddard, ”This is silly, I’m going to debunk you :) ”

      and on his own blog came to the same stunned conclusions Goddard had:

      ”he can hardly believe someone didn’t check Hansen’s bullsh**”

      ”he always thought it was true being taught it himself and heard it since – forever”

      ”He concurs with Goddard: ” We say” – Not Goddard says – ”No Green House Effect on Venus.”

      Lubos Motl’s blog is called ”the reference frame” and his review of Goddard’s work is named ”hyperventilating on venus” referring to Goddard’s work.

      This has been known outside the educational world for years. Hansen is/was simply an insane human being who perfected lying, to generate fake alarm, to get himself money: lying about fake, atmospheric chemistry.

      Anyone who is not used to the level of scamming involved in this pseudo science ought to review not just what Goddard does on W.U.W.T.

      but also there are other people who have done it, too. Goddard followed another man on the internet who showed how swiftly and textbook clear the steps are, for calculation of any volume of gas temp.

      Gases are the simplest phase of matter; the law regarding gas energy mechanics – gas chemistry – is very straightforward and simple, relative to the chemistry of other phases of matter.

      Harry Huffman is the name of the man I know of; he was a government employee of some kind who dealt with atmospherics maybe – I can’t remember exactly.

      Also is of course the paper Steve Goddard I think referred to when he said he thought ”Carl Sagan was smoking pot” when he wrote it.

      The paper is a N.A.S.A. publication after Sagan submitted it to them for review. Scientists had at the time radar cross sections of Venus’ atmosphere/planet complex thus knowing how deep the atmosphere is and how big the planet.

      They didn’t have a landed probe for instrument-verified atmospheric density at the surface so Sagan calculated at 90 atmospheres’ density. It’s actually 93 as probes landing on the surface show; but Sagan’s work was *right on the money* had the atmosphere been 90 atmospheres; Goddard hearing of this paper was what prompted him to write and submit the documents to the public so everyone who cares to can plainly see – the gas laws not only perfectly calculate the temperature of Venus, but of Earth and Mars as well: right on target.

      There’s no ‘runaway green house gas effect on Venus.’ It’s a scientific falsehood premised on simply lying, lying, lying,
      the same way Federal administrators lied, lied, lied, and lie – to THIS DAY and HOUR about the chemistryr of pot – making it an addictive gateway drug equal to heroin in it’s danger to users; worse than methamphetamine for a person.

      It’s that sort of officially printed therefore bottomless money academic crime in the field of chemistry the average person simply doesn’t feel confident challenging; and it’s as fake as pot’s like heroin.

      The two are equally realistic. And all it takes is for one to simply go around and see these people using the simplest laws of thermodynamics
      to calculate the temperature of a volume of the simplest phase of matter: gas.

      It’s even more revealing if you’re not an atmospheric chemist – to see professional chemists from other fields, take apart Hansen and his ilk’s computer ”models” and exclaim ”I searched in vain for the laws of compressible fluid dynamics but found none! I did however find repeated loops assigning larger value of CO2 = raise temperature. There is nothing in here that resembles atmospheric thermodynamics, at all.”

      This refrain is coincidentally a perfect paraphrase of the outcry by Hansen’s old supervisor who told the entire world, Hansen’s so called ‘modeling’ was hoax-ville.

      Bob Armstrong
      March 24, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      “father of global warming”
      Largely on the basis of his claim that the 400K excess of Venus’s surface temperature over the gray body temperature in its orbit is due to a “runaway” Green House Gas effect — all without either testable quantitative enabling equation or experimental demonstration of the effect .

  33. ……Man reads Hansen paper to Bulldog……
    Result ? Doggy facepalm……
    It’s what happens when things go to the dogs…(:P)

  34. The North Atlantic Drift may well transport heat into the Arctic.
    But it does not seem to be doing half as good a job as the atmosphere has been doing this year. The high pressure forming over Russia this year have been real climate changes. By the fact they have become tall rather then long. By which l mean they have been extended more to the north/south then to the east/west. This has had a important effect on the current climate. As they have been pushing large amounts of warm air northwards into the Arctic. Leading to much of the warming see have seen there this winter. Now over the short term this may lead to warming. But longer term should this last then l can see it switching the NH climate to cooling.

  35. Hansen is well known as being a serial peddler of BS, but I cannot see what the interpretation of the presence of these rocks has to do with ‘climate scientists’.

    As a humble geologist – is there any other kind? – and fully realising my limitations in not having visited the rocks’ site, I cannot see why a fault/earthquake induced tsunami should not be their most likely cause.

    • I am gonna go with “Paul Bunyan’s kidney stones” myself.
      But seriously, I agree he has said waa-aay stupider stuff than this.

    • What is more likely? A giant wave threw up two huge rocks within a few feet of each other in one spot, or they are weathered out of a larger and older feature? Might take a geologist to prove it but it looks pretty obvious to me. A tsunami of that magnitude would leave evidence on the entire coastline.

  36. 22 Mar: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: James Hansen’s apocalyptic sea level study lands to mixed reviews
    Critics accuse prominent climate scientist of unprofessional behaviour and alarmism, in debate over risk of rapid ice sheet melting
    A climate modeller at the Danish Meteorological Institute, Mottram did not take part in the review. “I took one look at the comments and thought: ‘It is a bear pit, I’m not getting involved.’”…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/22/james-hansens-apocalyptic-sea-level-study-lands-to-mixed-reviews/

  37. Is this attempt to ramp up the scariness of a 2°C rise a tacit admission that projections of 3,4,,5, 6°C rises are alarmist nonsense perpetrated by people like…..Mr Hansen?

  38. If the boulders don’t fly, they just need more hot air.
    This paper is just him doing his part.

  39. Have just listened to his 15 minutes talk – it is clear that our old friend Hansen has retired to practice pseudo-science. He is not backing anything with facts – but just with his own speculations. And did you notice that his very last suggestion was that we should ask scientists (having listened to his talk) what their OPINIONS were. Well, it’s not very useful to ask scientists that. Just ask them for FACTS – then you stand a better chance of hearing something edifying.

    • I still think he has a great hat, though. It reminds me of one I quickly bought when I went to live in Seattle. Lost it, unfortunately.

  40. J. Hansen’s paper:
    “Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms.”
    “The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2 °C global warming…”

    This is “remains” after unproven theories K. Emanuel.

    “Further investigations into this theory, however, reveal that Emmanuel’s theory does not accurately describe the way in which tropical cyclones affect the climate. While cyclones increase OHT, the heat does not reach the poles, and, thus, it seems unlikely that tropical cyclones caused the poles to warm substantially (Sriver and Huber, 2007). Additionally, work by Jansen and Ferrari reveals that tropical cyclones actually cause some heat to flow toward the equator and reduce the amount flowing toward the poles (2009).”
    (https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/cyclones.html)

    “Weak DT during warm periods has proven difficult to reconcile with climate model results, inspiring related puzzles known as the “equable climate problem” and the “low gradient paradox” (Huber and Caballero 2011).”

    … it’s in paper: Ocean Heat Transport and Water Vapor Greenhouse in a Warm Equable Climate: A New Look at the Low Gradient Paradox, (Rose, 2013).

    “The thermodynamic contribution is robust and well understood, but theoretical understanding of the microphysical and dynamical contributions …”
    (Precipitation Extremes Under Climate Change – P. A. O’Gorman, 2015,: 25 coauthors)

    … stones, rocks …

    Shah-Hossein et al. (23.12.2013, http://www.schweizerbart.de/papers/zfg_suppl/detail/57/81545/Coastal_boulders_in_Martigues_French_Mediterranean_evidence_for_extreme_storm_waves_during_the_Little_Ice_Age ):
    “The boulders occur up to 100 m inland from the present shoreline [!] …” “Dating of the boulders shows age ranges that correspond to the Little Ice Age (LIA), thus suggesting a relationship between their deposition and the high storm frequency that characterized the LIA. […]”

    Trouet et al., 2012.: “Such an increase in cyclone intensity [in LIA] could have resulted from the steepening of the meridional temperature gradient as the poles cooled more strongly than the Tropics from the MCA into the LIA.

    “…increases atmospheric temperature gradients” … at the time of cooling, at the beginning of LIA …
    LIA is warm period dr. Hansen?

    “… global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous …”

    Goosse et al., 2011. (http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/NL2011-1_lowres.pdf):
    “… wetter summers are found during the 13th and 14th centuries, in parallel to the global onset of the LIA, and may have added to the widespread famine in northern/central Europe in that period … […]”

    “widespread famine” = LIA, not MWP(=MCA) …

    If coauthors, the work of J. Hansen, for example, were: T. Knutson or G. Vecchi, would not be there so many pseudoscientific nonsense …

  41. I hope the lying a-hole lives to see the day when his boiling ocean theory is shown to be the biggest quantitative error in the entire history of science. I’m thinking of multiple tens of orders of magnitude off.

    The universe isn’t big enough for a similarly f*ckwit astronomer to be so wrong.

  42. I have often wondered if the UN really believed its own propaganda, why is it spending billions in renovating their headquarters in Manhattan when you would think they would be looking to move to higher ground. What nonsense.

  43. In sandstones like this Kombolgie sandstone near Jabiru in Australia’s Northern Territory, here are 2 eroding structures that one could imagine would be capable of falling over to resemble the target rocks of this article.
    The locations are some 75 km apart. No record of glaciation, not carbonate-rich enough for karst formation. Just eroding sandstone.One resembles a cannon, giving rise to a local name of “Cannon Hill”. It is just beside a tourist highway.


Comments are closed.