Snow

[Peter M]

Here in Connecticut we have seen probably a 1 in 500-1000 year parade of relentless winter weather- that is disrupting commerce, school schedules, transportation problems- and significant damage to homes and businesses.

Dr. Hansen's book 'Storms of My Grandchildren' so predicted these storms- with increasingly extreme weather events caused by the added warmth in the atmosphere- 'the stack in the dice'. With this weather, the events in Russia this past summer, the flooding in Pakistan, Brazil, Australia, and the Record low ice in the arctic- it seems it is all beginning to fit Hansen's predictions.

Hansen by the way relies less on climate models and much more on Paleo Climates of the distant past. He feels we are probably headed to a climate of the Mid Pliocene.

The question Hansen raises is direct and brutal in its implications: is the planet already entering a zone of dangerous climate change? With Arctic sea-ice in a “death spiral”, Greenland in 2010 melting at an unprecedented rate, a seemingly extraordinary number of extreme climate events in the past year from the Russian fires to the Pakistan floods, and 18 countries setting temperature records, have we already gone too far for a safe climate?

The period of human settlement over the past 10,000 years is known as the Holocene, during which time temperatures and hence sea levels (the two having a close correspondence) have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over the period have not been more than 0.5C warmer or cooler than the mid-line . The warmest part of the Holocene (the “Holocene maximum”) was about 8000 years ago, and according to Hansen, today’s temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum:

“… we conclude that, with the global surface warming of 0.7C between 1880 and 2000, global temperature in year 2000 had returned, at least, to approximately the Holocene maximum.”

Note, this is to the year 2000, and temperatures have increased ~0.15C in the last decade, so:

“Global temperature increased 0.5C in the past three decades to a level comparable to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher.”

That is, we are already a little above the Holocene maximum. This matters because Hansen’s and Sato’s look at climate history (paleoclimatology) in this new research finds that it is around this temperature level that the large polar ice sheets start to behave differently. During the Holocene, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been relatively stable, as reflected in the stability of the sea level. But once substantial melting starts, the loss of heat-reflecting white sea-ice, which is replaced by heat-absorbing dark ocean water, produces an “albedo flip”:

“Summer melting on lower reaches of the ice sheets and on ice shelves introduces the “albedo flip” mechanism. This phase change of water causes a powerful local feedback, which, together with moderate global warming, can substantially increase the length of the melt season. Such increased summer melting has an immediate local temperature effect, and it also will affect sea level.”

Their conclusion is that:

“… the stability of sea level during the Holocene is a consequence of the fact that global temperature remained just below the level required to initiate the ‘albedo flip’ mechanism on Greenland and West Antarctica.”

The implication is clear that “just above” the Holocene maximum lurks real danger. As Hansen and Sato say:

“… the world today is on the verge of a level of global warming for which the equilibrium surface air temperature response on the ice sheets will exceed the global mean temperature increase by much more than a factor of two.”

That is, warming at the poles will become more rapid and exceed the ratio so far, of being twice then global average. This change, they say, can be found in past warming events such as the Pliocene about 3 million years ago, so that:

“…

even small global warming above the level of the Holocene

begins to generate a disproportionate warming on the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. “

To put it bluntly, we are on the edge of a precipice in terms of large ice-sheet losses and sea-level rises, and there is little “cushion” left:

“Polar warmth in prior inter-glacials and the Pliocene does not imply that a significant cushion remains between today’s climate and dangerous warming, rather that Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming.”

Sea-levels are one devastating metric of “dangerous climate change”:

“Sea level rise potentially sets a low limit on the dangerous level of global warming. Civilisation developed during a time of unusual sea level stability. Much of the world’s population and infrastructure is located near current sea level.”

While some suggest a linear (or flat line) increase in sea-levels this century, Hansen and Sato argue forcefully that:

“… the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice-sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. In a non-linear problem, the most relevant number for projecting sea level rise is the doubling time for the rate of mass loss. Hansen suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible, pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5-metre sea-level rise by 2095. “

Here Hansen repeats his view, first published in 2007 but widely ignored, that a 5-metre sea-level rise is possible. In fact,

recent research

by Blancon

et al

published in

Nature

in 2009, examining the paleoclimate record, shows sea-level rises of 3 metres in 50 years due to the rapid melting of ice sheets 123,000 years ago in the Eemian, when the energy imbalance in the climate system was less than that to which we are now subjecting the planet.

So what evidence do we have of Hansen’s and Sato view that sea-level rises will be non-linear?

“The most reliable indication of the imminence of multimetre sea level rise may be provided by empirical evaluation of the doubling time for ice sheet mass loss. “

Looking at

recent research

on mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica:

“These data records are too short to provide a reliable evaluation of the doubling time, but, such as they are, they yield a best fit doubling time for annual mass loss of 5-6 years for both Greenland and Antarctica, consistent with the approximate doubling of annual mass loss in the period 2003-2008. There is substantial variation among alternative analyses of the gravity field data, but all analyses have an increasing mass loss with time, providing at least a tentative indication that long-term ice loss mass will be non-linear… We conclude that available data for the ice sheet mass change are consistent with our expectation of a non-linear response, but the data record is too short and uncertain to allow quantitative assessment. The opportunity for assessment will rapidly improve in coming years if high-precision gravity measurements are continued.

Further evidence of our lack of “cushion” can be found by looking at the warm Eemian inter-glacial peak 125,000 years ago, when it is generally understood that:

“… temperatures in the Eemian … were less than 1C warmer than peak Holocene global temperature”

In fact, Hansen and Sato conclude that:

“… global temperature was only slightly higher in the Eemian and Holsteinian interglacial periods than in the Holocene, at most by about 1°C, but probably by only several tenths of a degree Celsius.

Yet at these times:

“… some paleodata suggest rates of sea-level rise perhaps as high as 1.6 ± 0.8 metres per century and sea level about 4-6 metres above present-day values.”

A look at the Pliocene, three-to-five million years ago, leads to the conclusion that:

“… in the early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 metre higher than today, was only about 1C warmer than peak Holocene temperature.”

While atmospheric CO2 amount in the Pliocene is poorly known, a typical assumption, based on a variety of imprecise proxies, is 380 ppm, or less than today’s level!!

So at today’s level of carbon dioxide, and not much above the current temperature, the world has experienced sea-levels five to 25 metres higher than at present! From that, it is not hard to understand why Hansen and Sato conclude that:

“… goals of limiting human-made warming to 2C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.”

Summing up:

“Earth at peak Holocene temperature is poised such that additional warming instigates large amplifying high-latitude feedbacks. Mechanisms on the verge of being instigated include loss of Arctic sea ice, shrinkage of the Greenland ice sheet, loss of Antarctic ice shelves, and shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheets. These are not runaway feedbacks, but together they strongly amplify the impacts in polar regions of a positive (warming) climate forcing … Augmentation of peak Holocene temperature by even 1C would be sufficient to trigger powerful amplifying polar feedbacks, leading to a planet at least as warm as in the Eemian and Holsteinian periods, making ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise inevitable.”

In a line:

“Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming.”

We are perhaps already a few tenths of a degree above the Holocene maximum, and the system seems to be in the early stages of rapid change. It is widely expected Arctic sea-ice will be totally lost in summer with a few years to a decade or so, perhaps at less than 1C or warming. Very few scientists think Greenland would be stable in an Arctic with little or no summer sea-ice, and opinion is split as to whether it is past its tipping point already.

It is hard to argue that anything above the Holocene maximum (of about 0.5 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature) can preserve a safe climate, and that we have already gone too far. The notion that 1.5C is a safe target is out the window, and even 1 degree looks like an unacceptably high risk.

[WeatherRusty]

This should give pause to those who argue that the Earth has been warmer in the past, yet somehow life flourished. Yes it has been warmer in the past. I'm talking about centuries to millennia such as previous interglacial periods which were not much more that 1C warmer than today, yet sea levels were many meters higher. Even the lukewarmers should take note of how close paleo-data places us to a much different world for human habitation should temps rise only another 1C-2C....

[tacoman25]

None of the things you cite can be conclusively linked to AGW. In fact, there is more evidence that they are probably linked to a change in blocking/pressure patterns recently. Much like what was recorded in Europe and other places when earth was entering the LIA. See, I can use the same evidence for global cooling/solar influence!

The only predictions that can be clearly linked to global warming are actual global temperatures. And Hansen has repeatedly been off in his predictions of those. Though his own source, GISS, has been closer than most.

[Analog96]

Here in Connecticut we have seen probably a 1 in 500-1000 year parade of relentless winter weather- that is disrupting commerce, school schedules, transportation problems- and significant damage to homes and businesses.

Dr. Hansen's book 'Storms of My Grandchildren' so predicted these storms- with increasingly extreme weather events caused by the added warmth in the atmosphere- 'the stack in the dice'. With this weather, the events in Russia this past summer, the flooding in Pakistan, Brazil, Australia, and the Record low ice in the arctic- it seems it is all beginning to fit Hansen's predictions.

Hansen by the way relies less on climate models and much more on Paleo Climates of the distant past. He feels we are probably headed to a climate of the Mid Pliocene.

The question Hansen raises is direct and brutal in its implications: is the planet already entering a zone of dangerous climate change? With Arctic sea-ice in a “death spiral”, Greenland in 2010 melting at an unprecedented rate, a seemingly extraordinary number of extreme climate events in the past year from the Russian fires to the Pakistan floods, and 18 countries setting temperature records, have we already gone too far for a safe climate?

The period of human settlement over the past 10,000 years is known as the Holocene, during which time temperatures and hence sea levels (the two having a close correspondence) have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over the period have not been more than 0.5C warmer or cooler than the mid-line . The warmest part of the Holocene (the “Holocene maximum”) was about 8000 years ago, and according to Hansen, today’s temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum:

“… we conclude that, with the global surface warming of 0.7C between 1880 and 2000, global temperature in year 2000 had returned, at least, to approximately the Holocene maximum.”

Note, this is to the year 2000, and temperatures have increased ~0.15C in the last decade, so:

“Global temperature increased 0.5C in the past three decades to a level comparable to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher.”

That is, we are already a little above the Holocene maximum. This matters because Hansen’s and Sato’s look at climate history (paleoclimatology) in this new research finds that it is around this temperature level that the large polar ice sheets start to behave differently. During the Holocene, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been relatively stable, as reflected in the stability of the sea level. But once substantial melting starts, the loss of heat-reflecting white sea-ice, which is replaced by heat-absorbing dark ocean water, produces an “albedo flip”:

“Summer melting on lower reaches of the ice sheets and on ice shelves introduces the “albedo flip” mechanism. This phase change of water causes a powerful local feedback, which, together with moderate global warming, can substantially increase the length of the melt season. Such increased summer melting has an immediate local temperature effect, and it also will affect sea level.”

Their conclusion is that:

“… the stability of sea level during the Holocene is a consequence of the fact that global temperature remained just below the level required to initiate the ‘albedo flip’ mechanism on Greenland and West Antarctica.”

The implication is clear that “just above” the Holocene maximum lurks real danger. As Hansen and Sato say:

“… the world today is on the verge of a level of global warming for which the equilibrium surface air temperature response on the ice sheets will exceed the global mean temperature increase by much more than a factor of two.”

That is, warming at the poles will become more rapid and exceed the ratio so far, of being twice then global average. This change, they say, can be found in past warming events such as the Pliocene about 3 million years ago, so that:

“…

even small global warming above the level of the Holocene

begins to generate a disproportionate warming on the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. “

To put it bluntly, we are on the edge of a precipice in terms of large ice-sheet losses and sea-level rises, and there is little “cushion” left:

“Polar warmth in prior inter-glacials and the Pliocene does not imply that a significant cushion remains between today’s climate and dangerous warming, rather that Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming.”

Sea-levels are one devastating metric of “dangerous climate change”:

“Sea level rise potentially sets a low limit on the dangerous level of global warming. Civilisation developed during a time of unusual sea level stability. Much of the world’s population and infrastructure is located near current sea level.”

While some suggest a linear (or flat line) increase in sea-levels this century, Hansen and Sato argue forcefully that:

“… the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice-sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. In a non-linear problem, the most relevant number for projecting sea level rise is the doubling time for the rate of mass loss. Hansen suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible, pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5-metre sea-level rise by 2095. “

Here Hansen repeats his view, first published in 2007 but widely ignored, that a 5-metre sea-level rise is possible. In fact,

recent research

by Blancon

et al

published in

Nature

in 2009, examining the paleoclimate record, shows sea-level rises of 3 metres in 50 years due to the rapid melting of ice sheets 123,000 years ago in the Eemian, when the energy imbalance in the climate system was less than that to which we are now subjecting the planet.

So what evidence do we have of Hansen’s and Sato view that sea-level rises will be non-linear?

“The most reliable indication of the imminence of multimetre sea level rise may be provided by empirical evaluation of the doubling time for ice sheet mass loss. “

Looking at

recent research

on mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica:

“These data records are too short to provide a reliable evaluation of the doubling time, but, such as they are, they yield a best fit doubling time for annual mass loss of 5-6 years for both Greenland and Antarctica, consistent with the approximate doubling of annual mass loss in the period 2003-2008. There is substantial variation among alternative analyses of the gravity field data, but all analyses have an increasing mass loss with time, providing at least a tentative indication that long-term ice loss mass will be non-linear… We conclude that available data for the ice sheet mass change are consistent with our expectation of a non-linear response, but the data record is too short and uncertain to allow quantitative assessment. The opportunity for assessment will rapidly improve in coming years if high-precision gravity measurements are continued.

Further evidence of our lack of “cushion” can be found by looking at the warm Eemian inter-glacial peak 125,000 years ago, when it is generally understood that:

“… temperatures in the Eemian … were less than 1C warmer than peak Holocene global temperature”

In fact, Hansen and Sato conclude that:

“… global temperature was only slightly higher in the Eemian and Holsteinian interglacial periods than in the Holocene, at most by about 1°C, but probably by only several tenths of a degree Celsius.

Yet at these times:

“… some paleodata suggest rates of sea-level rise perhaps as high as 1.6 ± 0.8 metres per century and sea level about 4-6 metres above present-day values.”

A look at the Pliocene, three-to-five million years ago, leads to the conclusion that:

“… in the early Pliocene, when sea level was about 25 metre higher than today, was only about 1C warmer than peak Holocene temperature.”

While atmospheric CO2 amount in the Pliocene is poorly known, a typical assumption, based on a variety of imprecise proxies, is 380 ppm, or less than today’s level!!

So at today’s level of carbon dioxide, and not much above the current temperature, the world has experienced sea-levels five to 25 metres higher than at present! From that, it is not hard to understand why Hansen and Sato conclude that:

“… goals of limiting human-made warming to 2C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.”

Summing up:

“Earth at peak Holocene temperature is poised such that additional warming instigates large amplifying high-latitude feedbacks. Mechanisms on the verge of being instigated include loss of Arctic sea ice, shrinkage of the Greenland ice sheet, loss of Antarctic ice shelves, and shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheets. These are not runaway feedbacks, but together they strongly amplify the impacts in polar regions of a positive (warming) climate forcing … Augmentation of peak Holocene temperature by even 1C would be sufficient to trigger powerful amplifying polar feedbacks, leading to a planet at least as warm as in the Eemian and Holsteinian periods, making ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise inevitable.”

In a line:

“Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming.”

We are perhaps already a few tenths of a degree above the Holocene maximum, and the system seems to be in the early stages of rapid change. It is widely expected Arctic sea-ice will be totally lost in summer with a few years to a decade or so, perhaps at less than 1C or warming. Very few scientists think Greenland would be stable in an Arctic with little or no summer sea-ice, and opinion is split as to whether it is past its tipping point already.

It is hard to argue that anything above the Holocene maximum (of about 0.5 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature) can preserve a safe climate, and that we have already gone too far. The notion that 1.5C is a safe target is out the window, and even 1 degree looks like an unacceptably high risk.

The chief reason for Greenland being so warm is the -NAO.

[LocoAko]

None of the things you cite can be clearly linked to AGW. In fact, there is more evidence that they are probably linked to a change in blocking/pressure patterns recently. Much like what was recorded in Europe and other places when earth was entering the LIA. See, I can use the same evidence for global cooling/solar influence!

The only predictions that can be clearly linked to global warming are actual global temperatures. And Hansen has repeatedly been off in his predictions of those. Though his own source, GISS, has been closer than most.

Is it not possible that global warming is contributing to the changes in blocking/pressure patterns?

[tacoman25]

Is it not possible that global warming is contributing to the changes in blocking/pressure patterns?

It's possible. But considering that there is plenty of evidence that such shifts have occurred naturally before, there is little reason to believe global warming is the likely cause.

[Peter M]

Dr. Hansen is the nations chief climatologist via NASA- and Goddard. That does not make him a God or infallible- but thus far his predictions & calculations have been very accurate. Not to diminish the abilities of those here- I would tend to believe him- and listen to what he says, along with the National Academy of Sciences.

Yes, we are likely seeing weather here in Connecticut that could be attributed to climate change. As Hansen would say, if C02 levels where back at 290ppm, would we see storms? Yes we would, but not likely of this magnitude. The extra warmth in the atmosphere- the highest in the Holocene is the difference, with more water vapor , hence more precipitation.

His book 'Storms Of My Grandchildren' is chilling, and non political- but frighteningly accurate thus far. These are the beginning storms as the imbalances grow.

[tacoman25]

Dr. Hansen is the nations chief climatologist via NASA- and Goddard. That does not make him a God or infallible- but thus far his predictions & calculations have been very accurate. Not to diminish the abilities of those here- I would tend to believe him- and listen to what he says, along with the National Academy of Sciences.

Yes, we are likely seeing weather here in Connecticut that could be attributed to climate change. As Hansen would say, if C02 levels where back at 290ppm, would we see storms? Yes we would, but not likely of this magnitude. The extra warmth in the atmosphere- the highest in the Holocene is the difference, with more water vapor , hence more precipitation.

His book 'Storms Of My Grandchildren' is chilling, and non political- but frighteningly accurate thus far. These are the beginning storms as the imbalances grow.

No, his track record is not nearly as accurate as you seem to think.

If you don't believe me, take a look at his predictions made in 1988 when he made the big global warming presentation to Congress. He has also predicted record warm years several times when they did not end up occurring.

And you simply cannot blindly attribute big storms to AGW. If you really look into past history, you will see that there have been many, many huge storms/weather events that if they occurred today would be catastrophic.

[stellarfun]

The chief reason for Greenland being so warm is the -NAO.

Negative NAO doesn't explain Eastern Siberia. The AO does though.

January 9-16 2011 temperature anomalies (MODIS)

December 3-10, 2010 temperature anomalies (MODIS)

Conceded, the satellite temperature is short, only six years for comparative observations.

[tacoman25]

Also, if AGW simply means more water vapor and therefore more precipitation, shouldn't we be seeing a global increase in precipitation? Is there any proof of this? Why are droughts also being blamed on AGW?

[BethesdaWX]

What the heck? His predictions have been anything but accurate! Even warmists would agree to such.

Hansens "prediction" of the NYC turnpike being under 20ft of water, and the windows of the highrises being boarded up due to high winds also turned out well eh?

How about "water only available by request" in all resteraunts?

Oh, and his claiming the earth should be 1.3C above avg by now if we continued using fossil fuels at the rate we d now.................OOPS

I could go on and on.

[WeatherRusty]

It's possible. But considering that there is plenty of evidence that such shifts have occurred naturally before, there is little reason to believe global warming is the likely cause.

Of course they have happened before, but I would suggest they are more likely to occur as the world undergoes warming. Is it a coincidence that during one of the warmest years on record we get all this exaggerated weather? What about the AO being influenced by decreasing late summer sea ice and corresponding open water, decreasing albedo and enhanced arctic warming?

Are particular weather events caused directly by global warming. NO....If the world were not warming would we be experiencing the events mentioned above? Probably not. Sounds like a contradiction? Not if the dice are loaded more in favor of certain outcomes.

[BethesdaWX]

"Hansens predictions have been very accurate".........O....M....F...G

What a waste of a perfectly good keyboard.

[BethesdaWX]

Of course they have happened before, but I would suggest they are more likely to occur as the world undergoes warming. Is it a coincidence that during one of the warmest years on record we get all this exaggerated weather? What about the AO being influenced by decreasing late summer sea ice and corresponding open water, decreasing albedo and enhanced arctic warming?

Are particular weather events caused directly by global warming. NO....If the world were not warming would we be experiencing the events mentioned above? Probably not. Sounds like a contradiction? Not if the dice are loaded more in favor of certain outcomes.

There is no evidence of a relationship between -NAO/-AO and AGW. In fact, past history suggests that the most powerful blocking took place during COLD periods, not wam periods.

There have been many times in the Recent Holocene Era where temps reached about 2C higher than we are right now. Man Made Co2 is having no impact thus far.

[tacoman25]

Of course they have happened before, but I would suggest they are more likely to occur as the world undergoes warming. Is it a coincidence that during one of the warmest years on record we get all this exaggerated weather? What about the AO being influenced by decreasing late summer sea ice and corresponding open water, decreasing albedo and enhanced arctic warming?

Are particular weather events caused directly by global warming. NO....If the world were not warming would we be experiencing the events mentioned above? Probably not. Sounds like a contradiction? Not if the dice are loaded more in favor of certain outcomes.

Well, considering there has been a massive global temperature drop from a year ago to today, I'm not sure what your point is.

And if the AO/NAO are influenced much by Arctic sea ice, why was there no noticable trend with the NAO/AO until the big dropoff a couple years ago...despite decades of decreasing sea ice. 2007, the lowest extent on record, was followed by a +AO/+NAO winter.

[WeatherRusty]

What the heck? His predictions have been anything but accurate! Even warmists would agree to such.

Hansens "prediction" of the NYC turnpike being under 20ft of water, and the windows of the highrises being boarded up due to high winds also turned out well eh?

How about "water only available by request" in all resteraunts?

Oh, and his claiming the earth should be 1.3C above avg by now if we continued using fossil fuels at the rate we d now.................OOPS

I could go on and on.

Tell me you really think he said that the NYC turnpike would be under 20ft of water by now. Give me a break!

[Peter M]

Tell me you really think he said that the NYC turnpike would be under 20ft of water by now. Give me a break!

Show me direct quorate where Hansen has said this- from what I have read here thus far- you are the one of a few others who say nothing of any real consequence.

[tacoman25]

Another thing: if you're going to use the "loaded dice" argument...well, a warming world would also "load the dice" for warmer winters. Which is exactly why many people in the US, Canada, the UK, etc, believed that the unusually warm stretch from 1997-2007 was due to global warming. But since then, we have seen markedly cooler winters. Are we rolling the same dice?

[BethesdaWX]

Tell me you really think he said that the NYC turnpike would be under 20ft of water by now. Give me a break!

Talk about accurate predictions....haha wtf? Hansen is a friggin Loser!

http://wattsupwithth...r-james-hansen/

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.

The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC, has a view of the Hudson River.

Here’s a Google Earth street level view of 2880 Broadway:

[WeatherRusty]

Well, considering there has been a massive global temperature drop from a year ago to today, I'm not sure what your point is.

And if the AO/NAO are influenced much by Arctic sea ice, why was there no noticable trend with the NAO/AO until the big dropoff a couple years ago...despite decades of decreasing sea ice. 2007, the lowest extent on record, was followed by a +AO/+NAO winter.

What does it mean to the long term trend that temperatures are falling again, like they have during every previous Nina following a Nino? You need to get beyond this short term thinking when discussing climate change.

As to your second point....I don't know. I am just throwing out the possibility as has been suggested by some sources I have looked at lately concerning the highly amplified pattern in the northern jet the past 2 winters along with it's relation to the -AO and decreasing arctic albedo in late summer.

[BethesdaWX]

There is no evidence of a relationship between -NAO/-AO and AGW. In fact, past history suggests that the most powerful blocking took place during COLD periods, not wam periods.

There have been many times in the Recent Holocene Era where temps reached about 2C higher than we are right now. Man Made Co2 is having no impact thus far.

[BethesdaWX]

Talk about accurate predictions....haha wtf? Hansen is a friggin Loser!

http://wattsupwithth...r-james-hansen/

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.

The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC, has a view of the Hudson River.

Here’s a Google Earth street level view of 2880 Broadway:

[skierinvermont]

What the heck? His predictions have been anything but accurate! Even warmists would agree to such.

Hansens "prediction" of the NYC turnpike being under 20ft of water, and the windows of the highrises being boarded up due to high winds also turned out well eh?

How about "water only available by request" in all resteraunts?

Oh, and his claiming the earth should be 1.3C above avg by now if we continued using fossil fuels at the rate we d now.................OOPS

I could go on and on.

You are taking off-hand comments to a reporter and taking them literally (not to mention the reporter was recalling the interview 13 years after the fact).

I prefer to look at what he has predicted in peer reviewed journals (or at least things that he has written himself).

And he has predicted nothing of the sort in his peer-reviewed journal articles or anything else that has penned. In fact, he has predicted things directly contradictory to your claims. In the journals he has predicted 2-4m of sea level rise by 2100, which will occur exponentially not linearly. This implies less than .5m (or 18") by 2020 which still would not be enough to flood the west side highway. The west side highway is probably 2m+ above sea level, which means it wouldn't be under water until the 2080s or so, according to Hansen. Storms might start flooding it more frequently by the 2050s.

[Snow_Miser]

Hansen is perhaps one of the most bias scientists there is in relation to Global Warming Science.

More Inconvenient Truth’s about Hansen - Heinz foundation money and political endoresments (Canada Free Press)

Hansen: Coal plant vandals actions 'justified' because of 'emergency situation' (Canada Free Press)

Censorship:

James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Says Hansen 'Was Never Muzzled' (Watts Up With That?)

Media Double-Standard on Global Warming "Censorship" (NewsBusters)

Speculation Elimination: Did the Bush administration really censor science? (National Review Online)

- Science vs. Expert Opinion: Did the Bush Administration Really Censor Science? (PDF) (Center for Science and Public Policy)

White House Differs from Media on Timing of Climate Report (Business & Media Insitute)

[BethesdaWX]

You are taking off-hand comments to a reporter and taking them literally (not to mention the reporter was recalling the interview 13 years after the fact).

I prefer to look at what he has predicted in peer reviewed journals (or at least things that he has written himself).

And he has predicted nothing of the sort in his peer-reviewed journal articles or anything else that has penned. In fact, he has predicted things directly contradictory to your claims. In the journals he has predicted 2-4m of sea level rise by 2100, which will occur exponentially not linearly. This implies less than .5m (or 18") by 2020 which still would not be enough to flood the west side highway. The west side highway is probably 2m+ above sea level, which means it wouldn't be under water until the 2080s or so, according to Hansen. Storms might start flooding it more frequently by the 2050s.

HANSEN STATED THIS IN HIS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS WTF?

Talk about accurate predictions....haha wtf? Hansen is a friggin Loser!

http://wattsupwithth...r-james-hansen/

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.

The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC, has a view of the Hudson River.

[WeatherRusty]

Show me direct quorate where Hansen has said this- from what I have read here thus far- you are the one of a few others who say nothing of any real consequence.

I don't understand your point. I don't know that Hansen said that. I didn't set up the strawman!

BTW...I am one of the strongest arguers in support of the science underlying climate change on these boards.

[tacoman25]

What does it mean to the long term trend that temperatures are falling again, like they have during every previous Nina following a Nino? You need to get beyond this short term thinking when discussing climate change.

As to your second point....I don't know. I am just throwing out the possibility as has been suggested by some sources I have looked at lately concerning the highly amplified pattern in the northern jet the past 2 winters along with it's relation to the -AO and decreasing arctic albedo in late summer.

You completely missed my point. You said that "is it any coincidence we are seeing so many extreme events during one of the warmest years on record". I think we would all agree that this past month has featured some pretty extreme events. Yet the globe is likely at least 1F cooler now than it was a year ago. Using your logic, shouldn't the extreme events be dwindling now that global temps have cooled markedly?

[tacoman25]

You are taking off-hand comments to a reporter and taking them literally (not to mention the reporter was recalling the interview 13 years after the fact).

I prefer to look at what he has predicted in peer reviewed journals (or at least things that he has written himself).

And he has predicted nothing of the sort in his peer-reviewed journal articles or anything else that has penned. In fact, he has predicted things directly contradictory to your claims. In the journals he has predicted 2-4m of sea level rise by 2100, which will occur exponentially not linearly. This implies less than .5m (or 18") by 2020 which still would not be enough to flood the west side highway. The west side highway is probably 2m+ above sea level, which means it wouldn't be under water until the 2080s or so, according to Hansen. Storms might start flooding it more frequently by the 2050s.

All I know is that of the predictions we have been able to verify (mostly older ones he made), he does not have a great track record so far. Sure, it's only been 23 years since 1988...but clearly Hansen believed strongly enough in the profound impact of AGW that he made shorter term predictions as well.

Again, just read his 1988 testimony before Congress.

[WeatherRusty]

You completely missed my point. You said that "is it any coincidence we are seeing so many extreme events during one of the warmest years on record". I think we would all agree that this past month has featured some pretty extreme events. Yet the globe is likely at least 1F cooler now than it was a year ago. Using your logic, shouldn't the extreme events be dwindling now that global temps have cooled markedly?

The past month? How about the past year? Russian heat wave and fires, Pakistan floods, multiple flooding events in the US, Brazilian flood, Australian floods (western Pacific very warm), deep incursions of cold to the south and warmth to the north. Atlantic as warm as ever measured this past summer. If you isolate on the past month then maybe you have a point, I just don't think you can disregard the global warmth of the past year so quickly.

A complex system is at it's most unstable when it is in the act of change. These type events become more likely in a changing climate.

[skierinvermont]

All I know is that of the predictions we have been able to verify (mostly older ones he made), he does not have a great track record so far. Sure, it's only been 23 years since 1988...but clearly Hansen believed strongly enough in the profound impact of AGW that he made shorter term predictions as well.

Again, just read his 1988 testimony before Congress.

Yes even in his peer-reviewed and published papers he has been on the warmer/extremer side of things. His 1988 temperature predictions used a climate sensitivity that is now believed to be slightly too high (and he has since published correcting this).