Hansen Unhinged

Tony Duncan sent over some great stuff. First Hansen claims that he stated in 1988 that scenario B was the most likely. Then in the very next paragraph he says that he gave an interview in 1988 discussing a doubling of CO2 by 2028.

Michaels refers to greenhouse gas scenarios A, B, C in our 1988 paper, failing to note that precisely measured greenhouse gas climate forcing since 1988 fall almost exactly on our scenario B, which we had described as the most likely. Our climate model did a good job of simulating global temperature change, predicting a warming that so far is about 1/3 greater than observations – just about what we should expect, because the model used in that paper had sensitivity 4.2°C for doubled CO2, while we now know that real world sensitivity is 3°C.

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.”

http://www.columbia.edu/

This is how Hansen described scenario B in 1988

“Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”

A doubling of CO2 by 2028 is  more like Joe Romm’s “super-exponential” growth, then scenario B. And regardless of which scenario Hansen now claims he meant, they are all too high. The red line shows the GISS trend since 1960.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

CO2 is not going to double by 2028 and Manhattan is not going to be underwater.

“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.”

http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/

Hansen’s claim that his 1988 forecasts “did a a gob job” is simply ludicrous.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Hansen Unhinged

  1. hyperzombie says:

    Now Hanson is painting poor Canada pink.
    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/07/hot-pink-arctic/

  2. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Since when has data governed what James Hansen says?

  3. M White says:

    “CO2 is not going to double by 2028 and Manhattan is not going to be underwater.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13011073

    “New York set to be big loser as sea levels rise”

    Someone tell the BBC

  4. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,

    fascinating to me how you can completely undermine your point by posting the actual text that refutes what you are writing about. As your post clearly states, Hansen never said CO2 would double by 2030. When asASKEDked what would happen if it DID double by 2030, he responded with those quotes.
    Does your red line on his graph compensate for his admittedly wrong estimation of 4.2° from CO2 doubling? Since he has said for awhile that he was wrong ( (something I sure wish other people could do), and attributes 3° now as do many other scientists.
    Are the people that read this so slavish in their devotion to the cause that they don’t process that information? that reckons to over a 25% difference. Would you mind replotting that graph for me with the correct figures? I am not very good at that sort of thing.

    SO you must be admitting that you were wrong in repeatedly saying that Hansen said Manhattan will be underwater by 2008. You should thank Reiss for the fun you had, but you now need to retract your ridicule of Hansen for this particular assertion, which you now have posted on your blog that shows you were wrong in ascribing this quote to Hansen.

    that is unless you concur with SUYTS that is was an elaborate diabolic conspiracy designed to ….. uh to…. well,… to do something bad!

    And for your readers, the ACTUAL quote is “2030”, not in 40 years. I have the book in my possession. I could scan the text and post if you believe I am secretly Hansen trying to fool you all.

    I must say I am glad you are finally mature enough to admit your mistake, to castigate Reiss for causing so much trouble and apologize to Hansen for attributing to him something that was totally inconsistent with all his other public declarations.

  5. Jimbo says:

    Yamal demolished! The Team must be worried now.
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/09/yamal-and-hide-the-decline/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s