The world’s greatest climatologist spoke!
Good call Jim.
Hmmm … a 1910 version of James Hansen:
“TIlE END OF THE WORLD COMING.
THROUGH AWFUL HEAT, INTENSE COLD, OR FLOOD.”
At least this one is smart enough to cover all bases!
Even that was wrong, despite having covered all bases for the cause of the end of the world, the end of the world didn’t happen.
No point trying to debate this. It was peer reviewed.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Where we find:
“We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”
Actually Schneider was spot on with this paper.
It was probably the last honest paper from the climatology team.
Well Al, it appears that peer-reviewed paper may have been onto something. The most recent NOAA data shows that since 1998 the contiguous United States is cooling at a rate of 9.3 deg F/century!
Hansen really missed his calling. He should have become a comedian.
If I read that article correctly he got two things wrong. 1990-2000 a rise of .5-1 F then 2001-2010 also wrong. We have a winner.
Mann was he wrong … err … we’re talking about Hansen.
Put a big “X” mark thru that forecast! But that still doesn’t shut him up.
A-H-C-W-D. Anthropogenic-Hot-Cold-Wet-Dry. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Too frickin’ cold here in Tennessee, leaving for South Carolina.
Just let him get his little activist hands on the data over at CRU. Then you’ll see how good his call was.
What units (F or C) is the graph in? Anybody know?
As to what Hansen was talking about, I’m assuming degrees F.
It would be C. And, yes, Hansen was speaking about F.
Everything Hansen Projects is related to “F” as in “F”UBAR or SNA”F”U!
lol, yeh, him and his ilk are so consistently wrong, it just boggles my mind how people lend them any validity.
Pingback: Hansen 1986 : “2 to 4″ Degrees Warming From 2001-2010 | Global Warming Skeptics
You’ve all missed the point… it’s Climate Change… the climate has changed…. it’s hotter today than it was yesterday…. and it rained more on Tuesday than it did on Monday…
You guys must keep up!!!
Since broken analog clocks show time right twice a day, it would stand to reason that Hansen, (and Mann et al), must be digital since they’re never right.
Pingback: Crackpot “predictions” « JunkScience Sidebar
Wow, no rebuttle by any AGWers about how the newspaper reporter can’t be trusted with a comment off the cuff, or how he was taken out of context????? Are they having a secret pow-wow to cry over the new congress or what?
If you look at page 9347 of this 1988 paper by Hansen and coauthors–
–you will see nothing like the predictions attributed to Hansen by the reporter, but in the most extreme scenario you do see a 4-degree rise by 2060.
How about if you convert it to degrees F? Would the numbers in the paper in degrees C convert to the numbers in the newspaper quoted in F?
Maybe he was following Schneider’s advice and exaggerating.
What do you expect, he gets his advice from Zombies
You seem to be very trigger-happy here, but a 2-4 F increase in one decade is not been stated anywhere else in Hansen’s scientific publications.
When a local newspaper reports something that contradicts scientific papers of the same scientist, it does not hurt to check the source, now does it ?
So has anyone checked the June 10, 1986 Senate Subcommittee hearing minutes to see what Hansen really stated ?
I did not think so…
It is OK to say whatever you want to the press.
The Miami News reports “evidence presented at a Senate subcommittee” and “witnesses also tertified” and “Hansen showed…”. This indicates that the Niami News journalist got his information from the Senate hearing.
So it would not hurt to check the minutes of that hearing, rather than assume that the journalist interviewed Hansen separately but failed to mention that fact, and on top of that that the journalist gave an accurate description of what Hansen said during that interview, now would it ?
Amazing how many journalists heard Hansen make the same looney predictions.
Amazing how many bloggers can make statements like that without providing a shred of evidence.
Amazing how some readers can respond without keeping up with the blog.
Well, that seems to be only one. Me.
Now how about these Senate Subcommittee hearings that would verify what Hansen actually stated ?
And who are these other “many journalists” and exactly how did they report exactly which “looney predictions” from Hansen ?
If you make statements like this Steve, it could make some impact if you would actually back them up with at least some evidence.
Go up to the top. Find the search bar for this site. Type “Hansen”. Done.
OK. Suyts, Steve,
I did exactly what you said. I got a list of postings from Steve, and I checked all of them, looking for “how many journalists heard Hansen make the same looney predictions”. I found none.
If restated the question to “how many journalists made looney predictions that they attribute to Hansen”, then the answer is 1. It’s Bob Reiss, in and interview for his new book.
Steve is hardly original for posting this again, because it went through the climate science denial media machine like hot cake. Recycled over and over and over again ad nauseum, bloggers like Steve have posted and spinned this interview dozens if not hundreds of times over the past 10 years (!) since this interview was made.
So you would think that somebody would check the source of this, right ? Somebody would call up Bob Reiss and ask him for some evidence of these predictions, or if he could have misunderstood Hansen. Or somebody would ask Hansen if he really made these predictions or if he said something like that, where did Reiss misunderstand him ?
True skeptics would have gone to the bottom of Reiss’es fuck-up, an would long have digged up the minutes from the June 10, 1986 Senate Subcommittee hearing to find out what Hansen really stated.
Did Steve do that ? No. Did anyone else from the non-skeptic climate science denial bloggers check the source and went to the bottom of this so often replicated interview ? No.
Why not ? Why is Steve is fine with posting opinions and gossip and accusations to scientists ? Why is Steve not inclined to find out the truth, like any self-respecting journalist ? Only one man can answer these questions.
Still, I’m surprised that some people still eat his stories as if they have any factual basis.
The authority has spoken. I must not have posted them then.
I would suggest you read Hansen’s testimony at the hearings and all his press interviews since. If you still want to defend his statements that puts you with the same credibility as Big Jim. NONE! I have read what he actually said as was transcribed so claims that he made some wild guess at temperature rise of sea level rise are justified because those fit his historical rants. He was good for business at NASA because he could generate more funding for unnecessary research. He started as a computer programmer that designed the program / model that was used to announce the coming of the next ice age. Hansen has only been a useful Idiot and is still the guy that is destined to take the fall for this entire charade. His wild claims just happened to fit into different groups agendas. you do the Realists a favor by continuing to pick at this imperfection as it allows others to find the answers if they take the time to search. Keep talking about Death Train Hansen that received a pay off for services rendered by the Heinz Foundation and also received legal support from the Soros group.
James Hansen the figurehead for the Chicken Little Brigade.
No. Did anyone else from the non-skeptic climate science denial blogger check the source and went to the bottom of this so often replicated interview ? No.
lol, No, but then I don’t know any “non-skeptic climate science denial blogger”, either so its hard for me to say.
But, be of good cheer Rob, because, I did indeed find source quotes on the Reiss interview. I’d share them with you, but if you really did as we asked, then you already have the link. But here’s the kicker, so pay close attention to this one. The source of this newspaper story is not the Reiss interview. How do I know? Look at the date hot rod. Reiss’ interview of Hansen took place in 1988. Of course, your characterization of climate scientists as being part of the “non-skeptic climate science denial bloggers” is a hoot!
So, let’s review. Your assumptions about no one checking the facts are wrong. Your assumptions about only one source is entirely wrong. Your assumptions about it just being bloggers are wrong. With a track record like that in just one small conversation, it really calls into question your judgment in matters such as climate science, blogging, and skepticism. Maybe if you stuck around you might learn something.
I knew you guys would not like me now that I popped your little bubble of scientific ignorance, but the replies from suyt and Mike Davis do really underscore the inability of our host Steve in being skeptical and finding evidence for the statements made on this blog.
suyt. You mention a section from Suzuki’s book, which shows no correlation (neither in facts nor in timing) with either the 2001 Reiss book interview, nor the 1986 Miami News article. Also, there are no quotes from Hansen in the section you mention from Suzuki’s book, only the vague reference to his 1988 congressional testimony. Suyt, please staighten your story. If you really did “find source quotes” for the Reiss interview, which actually mention what Hansen has stated, then don’t beat around the bosh with snippets from books and handwaving, but actually SHOW THEM !
You mention “I have read what he actually said as was transcribed” but you don’t SHOW it. You rant about “His wild claims” but do not SHOW which wild claims you are talking about. And to top off your inability to show evidence of your opinion, you mention “you do the Realists a favor by continuing to pick at this imperfection as it allows others to find the answers if they take the time to search”.
Well, sir Davis, I’d think that the word ‘Realists’ should not apply if these people still have to look for the answers themselves. The word ‘gullables’ (opposite of ‘skeptics’) would apply better.
You guys are hilarious, I’ll give you that. You bring up newspaper articles and small paragraphs from old books, neither one of which states what Hansen has said. You show NOT A SINGLE quote from him, but still manage to call his claims “wild”, his predictions “looney” and claim that you are ‘realist’ or ‘skeptic’. Well, I’m sorry dear fellows, but you are the most hilarious bullies I’ve ever seen trotting around the internet, blaming and yelling and accusing, without a SINGLE shred of evidence.
Here’s your shred. It’s a lengthy NY Times story on the 1986 Senate Hearings at which Hansen testified. It is identical to the stories in the Miami papers, who presumably got it from the NYT News Service (although they may have trimmed it).
The Times is our country’s newspaper of record. It can be trusted to report Senate testimony accurately. It’s easy, because witnesses usually provide senators and reporters with transcripts of their prepared testimony. If the Times had erred, Hansen would have told them about it and the Times would have added a correction to its electronic version of the story–which it hasn’t.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,972 other followers
Sign me up!