NOAA's failed sunspot predictions

[Snow_Miser]

May 8, 2009 -- The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.

Description of Solar Cycle Progression displays

Table of Recent Solar Indices (Preliminary) of Observed Monthly Mean Values

Table of Predicted Values With Expected Ranges Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007, updated May 2008

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

The sun has now went into the same conditions it was in Dec of 2009, and NOAA has the sunspots at 50?

[aslkahuna]

Actually, according to the Region Summary, the R number is currently 54 with three sunspot groups and 24 individual spots. One important thing to note is that the Sun is not uniformly active through its entire area but has certain longitudes that are more active than others (called Carrington longitudes). This imposes a 27 day periodicity in the sunspot numbers. Additionally there is a 180 day activity cycle of peaks and lulls. It's the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number that counts and while it's likely that in the long run the forecast may end up being too high, it is really too early to call it a total bust since max is not expected until 2013.

Steve

[tacoman25]

Actually, according to the Region Summary, the R number is currently 54 with three sunspot groups and 24 individual spots. One important thing to note is that the Sun is not uniformly active through its entire area but has certain longitudes that are more active than others (called Carrington longitudes). This imposes a 27 day periodicity in the sunspot numbers. Additionally there is a 180 day activity cycle of peaks and lulls. It's the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number that counts and while it's likely that in the long run the forecast may end up being too high, it is really too early to call it a total bust since max is not expected until 2013.

Steve

I believe it was originally expected to be in 2012, though.

[Vandy]

I believe it was originally expected to be in 2012, though.

Yeah it was revised two or three times. But I think that, along the lines of the discussion going on in the Wx side, it's better to revise a bad forecast than to go down with the ship. Who knows, maybe this one will be revised again.

[tacoman25]

Yeah it was revised two or three times. But I think that, along the lines of the discussion going on in the Wx side, it's better to revise a bad forecast than to go down with the ship. Who knows, maybe this one will be revised again.

Agreed. But since there have been so many revisions to the original forecast already, I think it's safe to call it a bust.

[Vandy]

Agreed. But since there have been so many revisions to the original forecast already, I think it's safe to call it a bust.

Yeah, I think that's fair! Shows how much more we have to learn about our star.

[nzucker]

Yeah, I think that's fair! Shows how much more we have to learn about our star.

Another reason we shouldn't believe computer modeling of global warming.

[A-L-E-X]

Yeah, I think that's fair! Shows how much more we have to learn about our star.

Yes, and it shows how much more we have to learn about any star-- we know far far less than we like to think. I have no doubts that the reactions that go on inside stars are much more indicative of multiple cycles or even cycles of variable lengths. This is high end cutting edge physics we're talking about here-- and some of it even involves quantum mechanics (if it were up to classical physics, energy from the interior of the sun or any star wouldnt make it to the surface like it does.)

[BethesdaWX]

Another reason we shouldn't believe computer modeling of global warming.

lol yeah, didn't the NASA models have the strongest cycle on record at one time? I know it was up there pretty high, and I believed it... because I had no reason doubt the all mighty consensus & super computers with all the answers!

[nzucker]

lol yeah, didn't the NASA models have the strongest cycle on record at one time? I know it was up there pretty high, and I believed it... because I had no reason doubt the all mighty consensus & super computers with all the answers!

I just think using computer modeling for the climate and solar cycles is a bad idea. We don't have nearly the comprehensive knowledge of these patterns to develop such models (as Hansen 1988 and NASA solar models proved) so we should probably give up until we get more research in the bank. The PDO and ENSO/solar connection are processes we just discovered in the last 10-15 years, and these are huge gaps in our knowledge that have just started to be filled in...shows how much we don't know about our climate and our sun! The IPCC and Hadley Center like to oversimplify a nuanced climate into CO2 radiative forcing equations, but this doesn't acknowledge the vast amounts of uncertainty. The problem with computer models is that they are, by definition, simplifications. And in this case it simply doesn't work as we've seen with NASA, IPCC 2007, Hansen 1988 etc, Hadley Center Winter 10-11 forecast, etc.

[BethesdaWX]

I just think using computer modeling for the climate and solar cycles is a bad idea. We don't have nearly the comprehensive knowledge of these patterns to develop such models (as Hansen 1988 and NASA solar models proved) so we should probably give up until we get more research in the bank. The PDO and ENSO/solar connection are processes we just discovered in the last 10-15 years, and these are huge gaps in our knowledge that have just started to be filled in...shows how much we don't know about our climate and our sun! The IPCC and Hadley Center like to oversimplify a nuanced climate into CO2 radiative forcing equations, but this doesn't acknowledge the vast amounts of uncertainty. The problem with computer models is that they are, by definition, simplifications. And in this case it simply doesn't work as we've seen with NASA, IPCC 2007, Hansen 1988 etc, Hadley Center Winter 10-11 forecast, etc.

Yeah, NYC under 20ft of water in 2008...OMFG! Thing is, the CO2 theory has not changed really, and is run off the same basic principles used to make this stuff. Expect the busts to continue.

[nzucker]

Yeah, NYC under 20ft of water in 2008...OMFG! Thing is, the CO2 theory has not changed really, and is run off the same basic principles used to make this stuff. Expect the busts to continue.

And every summer in the East would be brutally hot as the Bermuda High became permanent.

Except 2009 was the coldest NYC summer since the 1920s, and that speaks volumes given how poorly Central Park radiates now. 2008 wasn't a particularly hot summer either as we flirted with record low temperatures in mid-late August with highs barely reaching 70F under full sunshine.

[skierinvermont]

Another brilliant argument...

we can't predict solar cycles ergo we cannot predict the climates response to increasing CO2

here's another one:

we can't predict solar cycles so we cannot predict the tides or tomorrow's weather using computer models

Argument by analogy is the most primitive form of argument, especially when the analogy is fairly superficial.

[skierinvermont]

And every summer in the East would be brutally hot as the Bermuda High became permanent.

Except 2009 was the coldest NYC summer since the 1920s, and that speaks volumes given how poorly Central Park radiates now. 2008 wasn't a particularly hot summer either as we flirted with record low temperatures in mid-late August with highs barely reaching 70F under full sunshine.

It seems pretty silly to me to be citing experimental studies from two decades ago a dozen times a day as evidence that AGW theory is wrong. Hansen's original study was experimental, acknowledged large uncertainties which could make his predictions wrong, and has since been publicly corrected in the literature. The original predictions were before their time in many ways.

[BethesdaWX]

And every summer in the East would be brutally hot as the Bermuda High became permanent.

Except 2009 was the coldest NYC summer since the 1920s, and that speaks volumes given how poorly Central Park radiates now. 2008 wasn't a particularly hot summer either as we flirted with record low temperatures in mid-late August with highs barely reaching 70F under full sunshine.

haha, I remember that one! Too many busts to count. Yeah, that Bermuda high did become permanent......

[BethesdaWX]

It seems pretty silly to me to be citing experimental studies from two decades ago a dozen times a day as evidence that AGW theory is wrong. Hansen's original study was experimental, acknowledged large uncertainties which could make his predictions wrong, and has since been publicly corrected in the literature. The original predictions were before their time in many ways.

The same forcing equations are being used in the IPCC's 6C warming in a century garbage. The 1930's/1940's & 1990's/2000's were erie similar. A WWII Submarine surfaced in the North Pole in the 1950's, during Spring... Ships in the 1890's were able to travel way up in the arctic farther than we can now.

Interestingly enough, all these periods coincided with +PDO/AMOs, and High Solar.......

[aslkahuna]

Agreed. But since there have been so many revisions to the original forecast already, I think it's safe to call it a bust.

I disagree since there's no way you can verify any of the forecasts before the fact. Once we hit max and can verify the forecast and various revisions THEN we can do the forecast review and determine where it went awry and what indicators we may find to be able to improve our forecast capability. Calling the Solar forecasts busts now is akin to calling a forecast for an I-95 Corridor snowstorm a bust 2 weeks before it happens-there may be indications that it will but it can't be called a bust until it busts for real. You can say that it probably will bust but not that it has busted.

Steve

[nzucker]

Another brilliant argument...

we can't predict solar cycles ergo we cannot predict the climates response to increasing CO2

here's another one:

Argument by analogy is the most primitive form of argument, especially when the analogy is fairly superficial.

Once again, stop the sarcasm, I've asked you a bunch of times. I'm just saying that computer models have been performing poorly when asked to model large-scale aspects of our climate whether it be changes in solar activity, increases in global temperatures, seasonal temperatures forecasts, etc. Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, and NASA solar models are all examples of the failure of computer technology to detect the very sophisticated and nuanced changes in our climate. There is a clear pattern here of AGW forecasts being too extreme, whether it is because of a reliance on poor modeling techniques or just overall bias. We know how CO2 acts in a vacuum, but it's a very different story when you throw in the solar cycles, the PDO, and the volcanic activity. Once again, why were models showing .2C warming/decade when we've seen almost no warming since 1998? Doesn't this make you slightly suspicious considering the tainted history of past computer modeling? Why should I believe IPCC 2007 is any more correct than Hansen 1988 since all the models are based on the same premise, that of simplistic radiative forcing equations like Planck's without a regard for complex natural cycles?

It seems pretty silly to me to be citing experimental studies from two decades ago a dozen times a day as evidence that AGW theory is wrong. Hansen's original study was experimental, acknowledged large uncertainties which could make his predictions wrong, and has since been publicly corrected in the literature. The original predictions were before their time in many ways.

His original study was a joke...it reveals the bias in AGW research, and that's why it's significant. No one in their right mind would have predicted NYC to be underwater and a permanent Bermuda high by 2010. Even the most unskilled meteorologist could have refuted this just based on common sense and looking at past weather patterns. It speaks volumes when amateurs do better at forecasting solar cycles and arctic sea ice than high-tech agencies like NASA and NSIDC. This bias continues to the day, and you must recognize it.

[BethesdaWX]

Once again, stop the sarcasm, I've asked you a bunch of times. I'm just saying that computer models have been performing poorly when asked to model large-scale aspects of our climate whether it be changes in solar activity, increases in global temperatures, seasonal temperatures forecasts, etc. Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, and NASA solar models are all examples of the failure of computer technology to detect the very sophisticated and nuanced changes in our climate. There is a clear pattern here of AGW forecasts being too extreme, whether it is because of a reliance on poor modeling techniques or just overall bias. We know how CO2 acts in a vacuum, but it's a very different story when you throw in the solar cycles, the PDO, and the volcanic activity. Once again, why were models showing .2C warming/decade when we've seen almost no warming since 1998? Doesn't this make you slightly suspicious considering the tainted history of past computer modeling? Why should I believe IPCC 2007 is any more correct than Hansen 1988 since all the models are based on the same premise, that of simplistic radiative forcing equations like Planck's without a regard for complex natural cycles?

His original study was a joke...it reveals the bias in AGW research, and that's why it's significant. No one in their right mind would have predicted NYC to be underwater and a permanent Bermuda high by 2010. Even the most unskilled meteorologist could have refuted this just based on common sense and looking at past weather patterns. It speaks volumes when amateurs do better at forecasting solar cycles and arctic sea ice than high-tech agencies like NASA and NSIDC. This bias continues to the day, and you must recognize it.

not to mention that we "amatuers" have to keep pointing ot the obvious errors in the NOAA/IPCC pess releases! What a joke.

[skierinvermont]

Once again, stop the sarcasm, I've asked you a bunch of times. I'm just saying that computer models have been performing poorly when asked to model large-scale aspects of our climate whether it be changes in solar activity, increases in global temperatures, seasonal temperatures forecasts, etc. Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, and NASA solar models are all examples of the failure of computer technology to detect the very sophisticated and nuanced changes in our climate. There is a clear pattern here of AGW forecasts being too extreme, whether it is because of a reliance on poor modeling techniques or just overall bias. We know how CO2 acts in a vacuum, but it's a very different story when you throw in the solar cycles, the PDO, and the volcanic activity. Once again, why were models showing .2C warming/decade when we've seen almost no warming since 1998? Doesn't this make you slightly suspicious considering the tainted history of past computer modeling? Why should I believe IPCC 2007 is any more correct than Hansen 1988 since all the models are based on the same premise, that of simplistic radiative forcing equations like Planck's without a regard for complex natural cycles?

His original study was a joke...it reveals the bias in AGW research, and that's why it's significant. No one in their right mind would have predicted NYC to be underwater and a permanent Bermuda high by 2010. Even the most unskilled meteorologist could have refuted this just based on common sense and looking at past weather patterns. It speaks volumes when amateurs do better at forecasting solar cycles and arctic sea ice than high-tech agencies like NASA and NSIDC. This bias continues to the day, and you must recognize it.

Where did he say NYC would be underwater?

He did not say the Bermuda high would become permanent.. that is a gross exaggeration (as usual for you). His study simply suggests that it will become more common.

IPCC 2007 has not failed. Stating it has failed is just flat out wrong. Educate yourself. The verification analyses are widely available.

Just because we can't model solar cycles has absolutely nothing to do whether models of climate can be relatively accurate. Computer models predict hundreds if not thousands of complex natural phenomenons with great skill. So taking one example where computer models fail, and then saying this must mean we can't model the climate response to CO2 is just a miserably poor argument that makes absolutely no sense. It's fairly amusing to watch you try though.

You continue to suggest that we only know how CO2 acts in a vacuum which just reveals your continued lack of understanding of the theoretical physics behind AGW theory. The theoretical physics says that the climate response is 1.2C per doubling of CO2 in the actual atmosphere of this planet.. not in a vacuum.

Hansen's original study was not a joke. It acknowledged large uncertainties and was intended to be experimental. It was highly successful. In a time when just recently people had been predicting cooling, Hansen predicted we would warm based on the physical properties of CO2. We did warm dramatically over the next 2 decades. This is hypothesis testing at its finest. To claim that his study was a joke is to be completely oblivious to how science work.

Given the large uncertainties Hansen acknowledged in his 1988 model... any sort of warming was consistent with it. We are well within the confidence intervals of the study, if you were to assign it confidence intervals based on the uncertainties he pointed out in 1988.

[BethesdaWX]

Where did he say NYC would be underwater?

He did not say the Bermuda high would become permanent.. that is a gross exaggeration (as usual for you). His study simply suggests that it will become more common.

IPCC 2007 has not failed. Stating it has failed is just flat out wrong. Educate yourself. The verification analyses are widely available.

Just because we can't model solar cycles has absolutely nothing to do whether models of climate can be relatively accurate. Computer models predict hundreds if not thousands of complex natural phenomenons with great skill. So taking one example where computer models fail, and then saying this must mean we can't model the climate response to CO2 is just a miserably poor argument that makes absolutely no sense. It's fairly amusing to watch you try though.

LOL read this

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

He REAFFIRMED HIS PREDICTIONS IN 2001! This is the Man behind GISS.....I love this guy now

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,

“

The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.

And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police

cars

.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that

restaurants

would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and

you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.

”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then

.

I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, here, just in case it should be deleted. So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980′s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.

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:

<DIV style="WIDTH: 520px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><A href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/google_earth_street_2880broadway.jpg">

[nzucker]

Where did he say NYC would be underwater?

He did not say the Bermuda high would become permanent.. that is a gross exaggeration (as usual for you). His study simply suggests that it will become more common.

IPCC 2007 has not failed. Stating it has failed is just flat out wrong. Educate yourself. The verification analyses are widely available.

Just because we can't model solar cycles has absolutely nothing to do whether models of climate can be relatively accurate. Computer models predict hundreds if not thousands of complex natural phenomenons with great skill. So taking one example where computer models fail, and then saying this must mean we can't model the climate response to CO2 is just a miserably poor argument that makes absolutely no sense. It's fairly amusing to watch you try though.

You continue to suggest that we only know how CO2 acts in a vacuum which just reveals your continued lack of understanding of the theoretical physics behind AGW theory. The theoretical physics says that the climate response is 1.2C per doubling of CO2 in the actual atmosphere of this planet.. not in a vacuum.

Hansen's original study was not a joke. It acknowledged large uncertainties and was intended to be experimental. It was highly successful. In a time when just recently people had been predicting cooling, Hansen predicted we would warm based on the physical properties of CO2. We did warm dramatically over the next 2 decades. This is hypothesis testing at its finest. To claim that his study was a joke is to be completely oblivious to how science work.

Given the large uncertainties Hansen acknowledged in his 1988 model... any sort of warming was consistent with it. We are well within the confidence intervals of the study, if you were to assign it confidence intervals based on the uncertainties he pointed out in 1988.

Bermuda High has not been a recurring pattern...he suggested we would have this pattern almost every summer and it has only happened one summer in the last four, 2010. 2009 and 2008 were both cool summers with tons of rain, not a subtropical high. He was just trying to add to the worry about the 1988 heatwave and the concept that global warming would impact people in concrete ways even though it hasn't. Sure his uncertainly bars were huge, but that doesn't mean the study was good, just that he protected himself against failure. His theory was not highly successful as it dramatically overpredicted warming patterns beyond what a reasonable person would have guessed...basically I could have done better. Here is a typical exaggerated quote from Hansen:

"How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth’s history. The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.

Eighty feet! In that case, the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million people."

I'm sure NYC, BOS, and DCA will all be underwater at the end of this century...talk about a miserable fail. I guess we can't verify this until 2100 but it sounds slightly exaggerated...400 million refugees and all of the East Coast as part of the Atlantic Ocean? Hmm. You have to ask yourself: Does this make sense to a reasonable person? Will this convince the general public of the overwhelming severity of global warming? And the answer is no. Heck, the Hudson River is well on its way to freezing this year. Hansen's 1988 theory was also not original as carbon dioxide's warming effect had been known since the 1860s when Arrhenius did his experiments; it was not a bold prediction to suggest we'd warm with increasing emissions and a massive +PDO with high solar activity. Anyone looking at these factors, even ignoring the anthropogenic influence, would have predicted warming based on meteorological grounds alone. Predicting any degree of warming doesn't mean the Hansen study was successful; this is just a joke.

IPCC 2007 has not failed but we were still within the lower part of the 95% confidence interval in a strong El Niño. Just take a look at the verification chart Will posted. Does that look convincing to you? We're clearly seeing larger departures from the computer forecasts than expected, and a strong La Niña will almost certainly cause us to fall out of the 95% confidence interval, perhaps for multiple years. Global SSTs are near 2007 levels, which means that global temperatures will fall to around -.1C or so this year, well outside the confidence interval given by IPCC. Also, Will's chart uses the warmer surface estimates of global temperatures, GISS/Hadley, and we are still failing to meet expectations. I find this a good indication computer models are not sufficient to model climate especially given the failure of NASA's solar model and Hansen's 1988 model. Sounds like a recurring problem if you ask me. And the general public isn't convinced either, Andrew, and they're the ones you need to convince.

[nzucker]

Jim Hansen is such an f***ing moron, it is incredible. The man is totally corrupt, totally ignorant, and should be immediately removed from his position. He is the definition of FAIL.

[Sunny and Warm]

Jim Hansen is such an f***ing moron, it is incredible. The man is totally corrupt, totally ignorant, and should be immediately removed from his position. He is the definition of FAIL.

Can I have a halleluiah please!!

[skierinvermont]

Bermuda High has not been a recurring pattern...he suggested we would have this pattern almost every summer and it has only happened one summer in the last four, 2010. 2009 and 2008 were both cool summers with tons of rain, not a subtropical high. He was just trying to add to the worry about the 1988 heatwave and the concept that global warming would impact people in concrete ways even though it hasn't. Sure his uncertainly bars were huge, but that doesn't mean the study was good, just that he protected himself against failure. His theory was not highly successful as it dramatically overpredicted warming patterns beyond what a reasonable person would have guessed...basically I could have done better. Here is a typical exaggerated quote from Hansen:

"How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth’s history. The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.

Eighty feet! In that case, the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million people."

I'm sure NYC, BOS, and DCA will all be underwater at the end of this century...talk about a miserable fail. I guess we can't verify this until 2100 but it sounds slightly exaggerated...400 million refugees and all of the East Coast as part of the Atlantic Ocean? Hmm. You have to ask yourself: Does this make sense to a reasonable person? Will this convince the general public of the overwhelming severity of global warming? And the answer is no. Heck, the Hudson River is well on its way to freezing this year. Hansen's 1988 theory was also not original as carbon dioxide's warming effect had been known since the 1860s when Arrhenius did his experiments; it was not a bold prediction to suggest we'd warm with increasing emissions and a massive +PDO with high solar activity. Anyone looking at these factors, even ignoring the anthropogenic influence, would have predicted warming based on meteorological grounds alone. Predicting any degree of warming doesn't mean the Hansen study was successful; this is just a joke.

IPCC 2007 has not failed but we were still within the lower part of the 95% confidence interval in a strong El Niño. Just take a look at the verification chart Will posted. Does that look convincing to you? We're clearly seeing larger departures from the computer forecasts than expected, and a strong La Niña will almost certainly cause us to fall out of the 95% confidence interval, perhaps for multiple years. Global SSTs are near 2007 levels, which means that global temperatures will fall to around -.1C or so this year, well outside the confidence interval given by IPCC. Also, Will's chart uses the warmer surface estimates of global temperatures, GISS/Hadley, and we are still failing to meet expectations. I find this a good indication computer models are not sufficient to model climate especially given the failure of NASA's solar model and Hansen's 1988 model. Sounds like a recurring problem if you ask me. And the general public isn't convinced either, Andrew, and they're the ones you need to convince.

He didn't say 2100 anywhere in that quote. He said how high sea level was the last time the earth was 5C warmer. That is a fact proven by numerous geological studies. He didn't even say sea level would rise that much he just said what would happen if it did.

Dramatic sea level rise of 30+ feet is a real threat on timescales of 250+ years. The last time the earth's temperatures were that high Greenland melted. It takes several hundred years for Greenland to melt, but if it it does that is around 30 feet of sea level rise right there alone.

But again in your over-zealousness, you misread quotes and interpreted him as saying this would happen by 2100. Nowhere does he say 2100 in the quote. He doesn't even say this WILL happen. He simply states a geologic fact about what happened the last time the earth was 5C warmer.

[skierinvermont]

LOL read this

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

Sounds like off hand (and poorly thought out) comments to a journalist with a bit of artistic license. Considering these statements are contradicted by his published predictions in which he forecasts only 1-2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (not 2010) .. he obviously never actually believed NYC would be under water. He has published statements in peer reviewed journals to the contrary. So what should I believe? Off hand comments to a journalist.. or his publications in peer reviewed journals?

[skierinvermont]

Jim Hansen is such an f***ing moron, it is incredible. The man is totally corrupt, totally ignorant, and should be immediately removed from his position. He is the definition of FAIL.

These types of character assassinations have no place in the scientific debate especially when you have read little to nothing of Hansen's published scientific works.

[A-L-E-X]

These types of character assassinations have no place in the scientific debate especially when you have read little to nothing of Hansen's published scientific works.

Its funny reading through this, because Nate never acts like that in PM-- he's much more impartial. I dont believe in a lot of what Hansen is saying, but I dont like the idea of demeaning anyone's character. The evidence will out, eventually and the answer will be somewhere in between, Im fairly confident of that.

But the other thing is you guys are really good friends and Im told your personalities arent nearly this argumentative. So I guess you two are just releasing your frustrations on here lol.

[easternsnowman]

Jim Hansen is such an f***ing moron, it is incredible. The man is totally corrupt, totally ignorant, and should be immediately removed from his position. He is the definition of FAIL.

I hope congressman Issa investigates him and other socialist type bureacrats!

[WeatherRusty]

Once again, stop the sarcasm, I've asked you a bunch of times. I'm just saying that computer models have been performing poorly when asked to model large-scale aspects of our climate whether it be changes in solar activity, increases in global temperatures, seasonal temperatures forecasts, etc. Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, and NASA solar models are all examples of the failure of computer technology to detect the very sophisticated and nuanced changes in our climate. There is a clear pattern here of AGW forecasts being too extreme, whether it is because of a reliance on poor modeling techniques or just overall bias. We know how CO2 acts in a vacuum, but it's a very different story when you throw in the solar cycles, the PDO, and the volcanic activity. Once again, why were models showing .2C warming/decade when we've seen almost no warming since 1998? Doesn't this make you slightly suspicious considering the tainted history of past computer modeling? Why should I believe IPCC 2007 is any more correct than Hansen 1988 since all the models are based on the same premise, that of simplistic radiative forcing equations like Planck's without a regard for complex natural cycles?

His original study was a joke...it reveals the bias in AGW research, and that's why it's significant. No one in their right mind would have predicted NYC to be underwater and a permanent Bermuda high by 2010. Even the most unskilled meteorologist could have refuted this just based on common sense and looking at past weather patterns. It speaks volumes when amateurs do better at forecasting solar cycles and arctic sea ice than high-tech agencies like NASA and NSIDC. This bias continues to the day, and you must recognize it.

Do you really believe by the bolded statement that what is meant is that each and every decade will warm by 0.2C? For the very reasons you cite we know natural variability will cause wiggles in the trend line, just like they always have. The background warming will continue however because it is forced to by the increase in radiation received at Earth's surface from the combination of direct sunlight and the Earth's own atmosphere.