NOAA's failed sunspot predictions

[WeatherRusty]

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.

skier,

Always be certain to emphasis that the 1.2C response is what to expect at equilibrium for the sake of accuracy. If the system is not yet at equilibrium with the 3.7W/M^2 then the 1.2C will not be realized. Just like turning up the burner under a pot of water it takes time for the water temperature in the pot to come to equilibrium with the extra energy it is receiving from the burner and the rate at which it looses heat energy to the rest of its surroundings, but when that equilibrium is reached the water temperature will be higher than before the burner was turned up.

If you simultaneously place a cold bar of steel into the pot (-PDO) after the burner is turned up, it will take longer for the water temperature to come to that equilibrium.

[nzucker]

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.

This is an extract from a longer essay by James Hansen, and at another point he says 5C is how much he expects the Earth to warm by 2100. Sorry I didn't include that but it was already a long snippet, and I figured you'd get the general idea. He is implying he expects the main I-95 cities to be underwater by 2100, and if you read the whole essay you'll get the impression. It's just a totally absurd comment, especially when he starts including inland cities like DC which aren't even on the coastline. He really thinks the ocean is going to rise like 50 miles inland in the next 90 years? What a bunch of nonsense! I didn't misread the quote at all actually, as you of course like to claim.

I'm not too worried about Greenland melting...temperatures up there are like -60F in winter so it's unlikely we'd lose the entire ice sheet in the next few hundred years. By that point, we'll be able to geoengineer the climate and work out solutions to any of these problems, anyhow.

I've read plenty of Hansen's work including his key 1988 testimony to Congress, which I found incredibly biased, exaggerated, and uninformative. I've also read several of his other essays which tend to be full of the same hogwash. Don't assume what I have and haven't read just because you consider me a moron on the issue.

[BethesdaWX]

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?

Really, do you know anything? You should listen to his speech in 1988..... And Making ridiculous claims of a faulty Journalist? Show me where he posted contrary statements, straight up, and that the Journalist is LYING

Listen to his press conference with Congress of you don't believe me, and he himself reaffirmed his predictions.

Really, is this as bad as the Himi Glaciers Melting by 2035.... or does he not know how much Land is above sea level? (IPCC 2007)......

[tacoman25]

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.

1 + 1 = 2. Earth's climate system is just that simple!

[skierinvermont]

This is an extract from a longer essay by James Hansen, and at another point he says 5C is how much he expects the Earth to warm by 2100. Sorry I didn't include that but it was already a long snippet, and I figured you'd get the general idea. He is implying he expects the main I-95 cities to be underwater by 2100, and if you read the whole essay you'll get the impression. It's just a totally absurd comment, especially when he starts including inland cities like DC which aren't even on the coastline. He really thinks the ocean is going to rise like 50 miles inland in the next 90 years? What a bunch of nonsense! I didn't misread the quote at all actually, as you of course like to claim.

I'm not too worried about Greenland melting...temperatures up there are like -60F in winter so it's unlikely we'd lose the entire ice sheet in the next few hundred years. By that point, we'll be able to geoengineer the climate and work out solutions to any of these problems, anyhow.

I've read plenty of Hansen's work including his key 1988 testimony to Congress, which I found incredibly biased, exaggerated, and uninformative. I've also read several of his other essays which tend to be full of the same hogwash. Don't assume what I have and haven't read just because you consider me a moron on the issue.

Just post the article instead of interpreting it for us (EDIT: LOL see below). Even if he said at one point he expects us to warm 5C by 2100 and even if he stated the well known geologic fact that the last time temperatures were 5C warmer than present sea levels were 80 feet higher that does NOT imply that sea levels will be 80 feet higher in 2100. It takes a long time for large masses of ice to melt, as Hansen obviously knows. He has predicted 1-2m of sea level rise in numerous peer reviewed journal articles which directly contradict your over-zealous interpretation of an essay by him.

Claiming he predicts 80 feet of sea level rise in the next 90 years and then claiming that's a bunch of nonsense and that he is an idiot looks extremely foolish of you when he has stated in numerous peer-reviewed journal articles something along the lines of 1-2m ... not 25m.

I didn't say his essays or his testimony before a political body .. try reading his peer reviewed journal articles if you want to know what his contributions have been.

[skierinvermont]

LOL... from the next paragraph of the same essay you have been quoting from.

A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response.

-James Hansen from his essay "A Threat to the Planet"

NOT 90 years as you 'interpreted'

Seriously, learn to read. I found this in 30 seconds by googling the text you had quoted and simply reading one paragraph further. It's sort of sad you go around misquoting James Hansen trying to sound smart. Do your due diligence and you will not make as many blatant errors such as this, it is extremely frustrating debating someone who makes blatant error in order to support his point and still insists on those errors even after they are called into question. I almost find it hard to believe you did not read one paragraph further.. what did you think nobody would bother to check what he actually said?

As I said, Hansen has predicted numerous times in the peer reviewed literature sea level rise of 1-2 meters by 2100.. not 25m as you have falsely 'interpreted.' People familiar with the peer-reviewed AGW literature know this.

[Littleiceage]

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.

Is that really what's being said by the skeptics? If there exist solar parameters that affect the energy balance of the planet that are not accounted for by the GCM, then it's premature to say with any high degree of confidence that natural factors do not overwhelm anthropogenic contributions. The central point of global warming theory, as it relates to warming vs cooling, says that the sun is insignificant relative to GHG radiative forcing; and if that theory fits observations than the theory of AGW becomes that much more iron-clad. The Skeptics are saying that it's too early to be so sure and that in order to test the competing theories, we need more observations, particularly with respect to the Solar Min.

The solar parameters that affect tides do not necessarily change significantly enough to result in large deviations between model predictions and observations. The analogy you give is incomplete because it assumes that the long-term secular changes in the various solar parameters that affect long-term energy distributions are similar, or more precisely approximate those that affect the tides. How can you be so sure? I remain more incredulous.

[skierinvermont]

Is that really what's being said by the skeptics? If there exist solar parameters that affect the energy balance of the planet that are not accounted for by the GCM, then it's premature to say with any high degree of confidence that natural factors do not overwhelm anthropogenic contributions. The central point of global warming theory, as it relates to warming vs cooling, says that the sun is insignificant relative to GHG radiative forcing; and if that theory fits observations than the theory of AGW becomes that much more iron-clad. The Skeptics are saying that it's too early to be so sure and that in order to test the competing theories, we need more observations, particularly with respect to the Solar Min.

The solar parameters that affect tides do not necessarily change significantly enough to result in large deviations between model predictions and observations. The analogy you give is incomplete because it assumes that the long-term secular changes in the various solar parameters that affect long-term energy distributions are similar, or more precisely approximate those that affect the tides. How can you be so sure? I remain more incredulous.

It's what zucker was saying. All I'm saying is that just because computer models have a hard time predicting some things, they predict other things fairly well. Long term climate change (50, 100+ years) probably falls in the latter category because they are constrained by the theoretical equilibrium response of 1.2C per doubling CO2.

[Littleiceage]

It's what zucker was saying. All I'm saying is that just because computer models have a hard time predicting some things, they predict other things fairly well. Long term climate change (50, 100+ years) probably falls in the latter category because they are constrained by the theoretical equilibrium response of 1.2C per doubling CO2.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

[nzucker]

LOL... from the next paragraph of the same essay you have been quoting from.

A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response.

-James Hansen from his essay "A Threat to the Planet"

NOT 90 years as you 'interpreted'

Seriously, learn to read. I found this in 30 seconds by googling the text you had quoted and simply reading one paragraph further. It's sort of sad you go around misquoting James Hansen trying to sound smart. Do your due diligence and you will not make as many blatant errors such as this, it is extremely frustrating debating someone who makes blatant error in order to support his point and still insists on those errors even after they are called into question. I almost find it hard to believe you did not read one paragraph further.. what did you think nobody would bother to check what he actually said?

As I said, Hansen has predicted numerous times in the peer reviewed literature sea level rise of 1-2 meters by 2100.. not 25m as you have falsely 'interpreted.' People familiar with the peer-reviewed AGW literature know this.

Nope, he's talking about a century. Here is the pertinent quote:

"The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century.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..."

Hansen then goes on to describe how if the Earth were five degrees warmer, all the East Coast cities could be underwater due to what sea levels were recorded in the past with this type of global temperature. He's talking about 2100, and it's clear from his comment that the scenario of not taking action against emissions produces about 5F in warming, which produces changes that could leave our biggest cities underwater. The next paragraph is talking about how long it would take to melt all the ice sheets, not the problem of urban flooding/coastal flooding in 2100.

So I do know how to read....stop acting like my fricking teacher when you're the one who lacks reading comprehension skills. You're an arrogant moron who should be suspended from this forum. Stop it immediately. I didn't misquote anyone, I'm actually a quite skilled writer and journalist who knows how to interpret a text. Once again, your snide comments are unnecessary...just because he says it will take a few centuries to destabilize the ice sheets completely, he still implies that 2100 could see our major cities underwater. This is simple reading comprehension. You are a poor reader and acting extremely mean spirited.

[WeatherRusty]

Nope, he's talking about a century. Here is the pertinent quote:

"The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century.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..."

Hansen then goes on to describe how if the Earth were five degrees warmer, all the East Coast cities could be underwater due to what sea levels were recorded in the past with this type of global temperature. He's talking about 2100, and it's clear from his comment that the scenario of not taking action against emissions produces about 5F in warming, which produces changes that could leave our biggest cities underwater. The next paragraph is talking about how long it would take to melt all the ice sheets, not the problem of urban flooding/coastal flooding in 2100.

So I do know how to read....stop acting like my fricking teacher when you're the one who lacks reading comprehension skills. You're an arrogant moron who should be suspended from this forum. Stop it immediately. I didn't misquote anyone, I'm actually a quite skilled writer and journalist who knows how to interpret a text. Once again, your snide comments are unnecessary...just because he says it will take a few centuries to destabilize the ice sheets completely, he still implies that 2100 could see our major cities underwater. This is simple reading comprehension. You are a poor reader and acting extremely mean spirited.

This is ridiculous nzucker. Hansen projects temperature anomaly to reach 5F by 2100 in his above statement. At that temperature if it is sustained for hundreds of years the ice will melt to levels it has in the past when temperature reached that high. Come on, he is not so stupid to think vast ice sheets can melt in a century by so much as to totally inundate coastal areas under tens of meters of water. The ice just can't absorb energy that quickly to melt that much in that short a period of time and any scientist worth his salt knows that. He would have been laughed out of the building if he meant what you presume he meant.

[nzucker]

This is ridiculous nzucker. Hansen projects temperature anomaly to reach 5F by 2100 in his above statement. At that temperature if it is sustained for hundreds of years the ice will melt to levels it has in the past when temperature reached that high. Come on, he is not so stupid to think vast ice sheets can melt in a century by so much as to totally inundate coastal areas under tens of meters of water. The ice just can't absorb energy that quickly to melt that much in that short a period of time and any scientist worth his salt knows that. He would have been laughed out of the building if he meant what you presume he meant.

He should have clarified then. His argument suggests that 5F of global warming in a century would cause an 80-foot sea level rise, which would allow the main cities to be flooded. He doesn't say "This is an unlikely scenario and probably wouldn't happen until we had already found a solution to the problem in many, many hundreds of years."

He goes on to talk about the effects a few centuries down the road, and he is even more dramatic, saying that 100s of cities could be underwater with the Greenland Ice Sheet melted. To a normal reader, it sounds as the first set of cities is what could be flooded by 2100, and then countless more could be ruined in a few centuries with the meltdown of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (not even remotely possible) and the Greenland Ice Sheet. This is clearly fear-mongering and definitely an obfuscation of the science. He does qualify this later, saying, "The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet, with twenty feet or more per century, could produce global chaos, leaving fewer resources with which to mitigate the change in climate." If it were twenty feet per year, it would take 400 years to send these cities underwater. But who knows how much "more" means to Hansen? He deliberately leaves this open-ended as an aspect of his global chaos theory. There's definitely an unnecessary shock value to this essay, and an attempt to overdramatize how quickly the sea level could rise, later qualifying this in an ambiguous way. Also, 20 feet of sea level rise seems like a lot by 2100, anyhow. IPCC 2007 says between 0.6' and 2' of sea level rise will occur by 2100; Hansen suggests it will be 20 times this. Why the incredible discrepancy? If the IPCC, which is often generous in its assessment of global warming impact, believes we're talking about a couple feet at most, why is Hansen saying 20'+ per 100 years? Sounds like more BS to me.

[BethesdaWX]

It's what zucker was saying. All I'm saying is that just because computer models have a hard time predicting some things, they predict other things fairly well. Long term climate change (50, 100+ years) probably falls in the latter category because they are constrained by the theoretical equilibrium response of 1.2C per doubling CO2.

Yes, and that 1.2C response, being untested, is nothing more than a hypothesis, as all predictions are. We can sort through all the equations we want, but ind the end, we either prove our hypothesis, or it is disproven.

Thats what this whole debate is about. The AGW theory has been Given to us, and those who agree that it will verify & believe the evidence is supporting it, are the warmists....those who disagree, & believe the evidence does not support it, are skeptics. We can bark at eachother, & b*tch all we want.

Less radiation being reflected could very well be due to or boosted by Mass GCC decreases, while warmer ocean phases maintain an altered base. Solar Magnetic waves are also decreasing (what produce sunspots), and that has an effect as well. It wold help if there was some sort of raw data code available. Same goes for "deep ocean heating"...we have NOAA modeling, but with No raw data code. This is why we need all data to be released to the public, I've had FOI's refused, and being 18, you think I have the time or will to Sue for it?

We won't know whether the AGW theory is verified for another 20-30 years, but we better resume warming NOW before things get ancy, 1.5 decades without it was never progged by anyone, no models had 15 years of flatlining...especially throgh 75% El Nino dominance, 2 super ninos, +AMo/+PSO, historic Modern max, & Epic CO2 increases. Yeah, something wrong here?

[BethesdaWX]

He should have clarified then. His argument suggests that 5F of global warming in a century would cause an 80-foot sea level rise, which would allow the main cities to be flooded. He doesn't say "This is an unlikely scenario and probably wouldn't happen until we had already found a solution to the problem in many, many hundreds of years."

He goes on to talk about the effects a few centuries down the road, and he is even more dramatic, saying that 100s of cities could be underwater with the Greenland Ice Sheet melted. To a normal reader, it sounds as the first set of cities is what could be flooded by 2100, and then countless more could be ruined in a few centuries with the meltdown of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (not even remotely possible) and the Greenland Ice Sheet. This is clearly fear-mongering and definitely an obfuscation of the science. He does qualify this later, saying, "The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet, with twenty feet or more per century, could produce global chaos, leaving fewer resources with which to mitigate the change in climate." If it were twenty feet per year, it would take 400 years to send these cities underwater. But who knows how much "more" means to Hansen? He deliberately leaves this open-ended as an aspect of his global chaos theory. There's definitely an unnecessary shock value to this essay, and an attempt to overdramatize how quickly the sea level could rise, later qualifying this in an ambiguous way. Also, 20 feet of sea level rise seems like a lot by 2100, anyhow. IPCC 2007 says between 0.6' and 2' of sea level rise will occur by 2100; Hansen suggests it will be 20 times this. Why the incredible discrepancy? If the IPCC, which is often generous in its assessment of global warming impact, believes we're talking about a couple feet at most, why is Hansen saying 20'+ per 100 years? Sounds like more BS to me.

Yeah, who whold be stupid enough to think the Antarctic Ice sheet COULD melt? Some of those places Average -30C in the SUMMER, and have never gotten above -10C or so. Maybe the warmer sectors could melt some, but its physcially impossible for the Main ice sheet it to melt away.

[skierinvermont]

He should have clarified then.

Lol.. he does in the very next paragraph which you either didn't bother to read or intentionally ignored.

Here is the FULL quote which is 100% scientifically accurate and not misleading in the slightest.

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.

A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. The Earth’s history reveals cases in which sea level, once ice sheets began to collapse, rose one meter (1.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world, most of them far larger than New Orleans. Devastation from a rising sea occurs as the result of local storms which can be expected to cause repeated retreats from transitory shorelines and rebuilding away from them.

He is very clear and very explicit to anybody with a Kindergarten reading level that the sea level associated with global warming will take centuries to occur and that he is NOT saying sea level will rise 80 feet by 2100. Anybody who claims he is saying sea level will rise 80 feet by 2100 needs to get their head checked. You are making a fool of yourself. You are putting words in his mouth by taking only the above sentence of the above excerpt and then misinterpreting it. In the very next paragraph of a very long essay he very explicitly says sea level will NOT rise 80 feet by 2100, as you falsely claimed he did say.

Seriously, anybody that reads the above and then prances around on a weather board claiming "Jim Hansen says sea level will rise 80 feet by 2100" needs to learn how to read.

[nzucker]

Even if he says 20-30' a century, that's still like 20X more than the IPCC. What gives? Why the need for dramatics?

I do think Hansen's writing techniques are intentionally deceptive...he states how much the planet will warm by 2100, then how much sea level should rise with that warming, but then adds later after the more dramatic comments that it may not happen for several centuries. This is a manipulation of the reading...believe me, I've taken journalism courses and spent years dealing with "leading" articles like this...no surprises here. Once again, Hansen proves he's more of a politician than a scientist. If only he'd stayed in jail longer....

[Vandy]

Yeah, who whold be stupid enough to think the Antarctic Ice sheet COULD melt? Some of those places Average -30C in the SUMMER, and have never gotten above -10C or so. Maybe the warmer sectors could melt some, but its physcially impossible for the Main ice sheet it to melt away.

It's certainly not PHYSICALLY impossible, but I have doubts that warming would affect the Antarctic ice sheet, at least in the short term. I've seen recent studies which indicate warming might increase the strength of the circumpolar currents around the South Pole, further isolating it from the warmth of the mid-latitudes and actually cooling the continent.

[BethesdaWX]

It's certainly not PHYSICALLY impossible, but I have doubts that warming would affect the Antarctic ice sheet, at least in the short term. I've seen recent studies which indicate warming might increase the strength of the circumpolar currents around the South Pole, further isolating it from the warmth of the mid-latitudes and actually cooling the continent.

Ok

We'd still need the planet to warm abot 10C+ to even have a shot at the heart of the Ice sheet....eh, not happening

Both the SST's & Land Temps in the Antarctic have been cooling for 30yrs, which is clearly Heat Distribution (PDO/AMO) related.

[skierinvermont]

Even if he says 20-30' a century, that's still like 20X more than the IPCC. What gives? Why the need for dramatics?

I do think Hansen's writing techniques are intentionally deceptive...he states how much the planet will warm by 2100, then how much sea level should rise with that warming, but then adds later after the more dramatic comments that it may not happen for several centuries. This is a manipulation of the reading...believe me, I've taken journalism courses and spent years dealing with "leading" articles like this...no surprises here. Once again, Hansen proves he's more of a politician than a scientist. If only he'd stayed in jail longer....

What is misleading (especially for someone who has taken a journalism course) is to take a quote entirely out of context and interpret it to his audience in a way directly contradictory to the following paragraph.

I read the essay, and I was not mislead in the slightest. It is a very long essay and any confusion is cleared up in the following paragraph where it states explicitly it will take centuries for sea levels to rise. Nobody (except you) would come away from reading that essay thinking sea level was going to rise 80 feet by 2100.

[nzucker]

What is misleading (especially for someone who has taken a journalism course) is to take a quote entirely out of context and interpret in a way directly contradictory to the following paragraph.

I read the essay, and I was not mislead in the slightest. It is a very long essay and any confusion is cleared up in the following paragraph where it states explicitly it will take centuries for sea levels to rise. Nobody (except you) would come away from reading that essay thinking sea level was going to rise 80 feet.

It isn't out of context...Hansen is deliberately trying to mislead the reader by talking about how much global warming will occur this century and how much sea level rise that has produced, but then later saying it "might take a few centuries to complete." He's also using a figure for sea level rise that's completely out of sync with what the most aggressive scientists believe, which is an even bigger problem with the article. Why does he exaggerate the IPCC findings so much?

Why does Hansen always feel the need to stretch the truth with huge Bermuda high heat waves, massive sea level rise, 5F warming in a century, etc?

[BethesdaWX]

What is misleading (especially for someone who has taken a journalism course) is to take a quote entirely out of context and interpret it to his audience in a way directly contradictory to the following paragraph.

I read the essay, and I was not mislead in the slightest. It is a very long essay and any confusion is cleared up in the following paragraph where it states explicitly it will take centuries for sea levels to rise. Nobody (except you) would come away from reading that essay thinking sea level was going to rise 80 feet by 2100.

Stop with the BS, his claiming the NYC turnpike would be underwater with Resteraunts saying "water by request only"......................BY 2008.... thats the end of it..... theres nothing to argue, ok?

Oh yes, lets not forget all the windows will be taped due to high winds!

He reaffirmed his predictions in 2001. I don't care if you believe it or not, because you do not have the knowledge to make such an assumption that the Journalist is lying, do you understand?

He has been stating this prediction through the mid 90's, into the early 2000's.

[WeatherRusty]

What is misleading (especially for someone who has taken a journalism course) is to take a quote entirely out of context and interpret it to his audience in a way directly contradictory to the following paragraph.

I read the essay, and I was not mislead in the slightest. It is a very long essay and any confusion is cleared up in the following paragraph where it states explicitly it will take centuries for sea levels to rise. Nobody (except you) would come away from reading that essay thinking sea level was going to rise 80 feet by 2100.

Not to pick on James Hansen directly but it is pretty clear that climate scientists have done a very poor job at messaging their concerns in general. Most of that concern is quite justified, but if you can't get the message out in a convincing manner....particularly to a great many learned scientific minds then who's fault is that?

[skierinvermont]

It isn't out of context...Hansen is deliberately trying to mislead the reader by talking about how much global warming will occur this century and how much sea level rise that has produced, but then later saying it "might take a few centuries to complete." He's also using a figure for sea level rise that's completely out of sync with what the most aggressive scientists believe, which is an even bigger problem with the article. Why does he exaggerate the IPCC findings so much?

Why does Hansen always feel the need to stretch the truth with huge Bermuda high heat waves, massive sea level rise, 5F warming in a century, etc?

Again, it is not misleading if you read the following paragraph where it is says very explicitly it will take 300 years for the sea level to rise. Nobody except you would read that essay and come away thinking sea level is going to rise 80 feet by 2100.

The fact that seas were 80 feet higher the last time global temperature was 5F warmer is not an exaggeration.. it is a geologic fact which is well supported.

5F is not an exaggeration of IPCC findings. It is actually slightly below the IPCC model consensus of about 5.5F this century (3C). Perhaps you got the units confused?

[aslkahuna]

Thread creep again from Sunspot predictions to James Hansen-don't know why I bothered to post in this thread.

Steve

[nzucker]

Thread creep again from Sunspot predictions to James Hansen-don't know why I bothered to post in this thread.

Steve

Yeah let's get back on topic,

What are the latest trends on sunspots?

Have the experts made any new forecasts about the peak of Cycle 24?

[Sunny and Warm]

Interesting that even at this stage of the cycle (first spot almost exactly three years ago today), spots cannot maintain themselves, and that most are quickly dying out in a day or two. After today, I suspect we'll only be left with that big old spot until it leaves stage right. Without a consistent set of spots in cycle 24 to re-charge the magnetism, the dipole will spell doom for cycle 25. Cycle 25 may have a hard time hitting 40. Maybe much less.

[beneficii]

Even if he says 20-30' a century, that's still like 20X more than the IPCC. What gives? Why the need for dramatics?

I do think Hansen's writing techniques are intentionally deceptive...he states how much the planet will warm by 2100, then how much sea level should rise with that warming, but then adds later after the more dramatic comments that it may not happen for several centuries. This is a manipulation of the reading...believe me, I've taken journalism courses and spent years dealing with "leading" articles like this...no surprises here. Once again, Hansen proves he's more of a politician than a scientist. If only he'd stayed in jail longer....

He explained it in the following paragraph. If you can't read it because your bias leads you to read it as something else, then that's your own fault. Instead, you just continue this witch hunt.

[BethesdaWX]

He explained it in the following paragraph. If you can't read it because your bias leads you to read it as something else, then that's your own fault. Instead, you just continue this witch hunt.

Ditto to you.

Back on topic now, k?

[nzucker]

He explained it in the following paragraph. If you can't read it because your bias leads you to read it as something else, then that's your own fault. Instead, you just continue this witch hunt.

No one has answered me: why does Hansen say 20'/century of sea level rise instead of the .5-2' predicted by the IPCC? Is there any evidence for what he is saying?

[BethesdaWX]

No one has answered me: why does Hansen say 20'/century of sea level rise instead of the .5-2' predicted by the IPCC? Is there any evidence for what he is saying?

He has no evidence, a bunch of BS. Hansen himself re-affirmed his NYC turnpike underwater by 2008 prediction not too long ago....in 2001! What does that say?

He said the windows in NYC would all be taped up due to high winds....he also said resteraunts would serve "water on request" only.

He is a Joke, and anyone who argues with that, In My Opinion, Is also a Joke.