‘Beijing Jim’ Hansen: Sea Level Rise of Many Metres This Century “Almost Dead Certain”

You gotta hand it to the guy, despite almost every single one of his prognostications turning out to be wrong, he doesn’t bat an eyelid but just right on going. And they keep letting him.

The latest escapade from Beijing Jim involves  a paper he’s writing which says it’s “almost dead certain” that the sea will rise by a multiple number of metres this century. As Treehugger reports:

“[Business as usual] scenarios result in global warming on the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain.”

Treehugger. Multi-Meter Sea Level Rise by 2100 Certain with Business As Usual Emissions: James Hansen.

Apparently, Beijing Jim reckons that something called “albedo flip” will speed the process of melting all the ice in the word (including the 90% of the world’s ice in Antarctica, currently chilling at around -40 degrees celcius). For more, you can read the draft paper here.

What’s so touching about the way Treehugger reports this latest paper is the level of doe-eyed trust they seem to still have in him:

James Hansen may be as much as a celebrity as one can be in the world of climate change science, so when he and colleague Makiko Sato say that we’re in for multi-meter sea level rise by 2100 you have to pay attention, even when that prediction falls well outside the range predicted by many other climate scientists

Isn’t that nice? His predictions for temperature rises with “business as usual scenarios” from 1988 that kicked this whole thing off were miles out, yet still they believe in him, despite what those horrid sceptics say with their insistence on, y’know, verifiable evidence and empirical science rather than a simulation on a computer.

Copies of the draft paper being handed out.

About these ads

23 responses to “‘Beijing Jim’ Hansen: Sea Level Rise of Many Metres This Century “Almost Dead Certain”

  1. I believe there is a typographical error in the second line of the text: “not wrong” should be “wrong”.

  2. In days of yore the Court Jester was and official position. Hummmmm… things haven’t changed much, really they haven’t!

  3. If you’ve got the facts on Hansen that show him in error, why do you need the schoolyard, immature name calling? “Beijing Jim?”

  4. Here is James Hansen’s record on sea level rise:

    Dr. James Hansen – 1989
    Q. “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?”

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

    FAIL!

    Note:
    The term “West Side Highway” is often mistakenly used, particularly by the news media traffic reporters, to include the roadway north of 72nd street which is properly known as the Henry Hudson Parkway.

    • That’s a great quote. It just confirms that Hansen can’t be relied on, as he has some kind of morbid fascination with the idea of apocalypse.

      It’s never just a couple of degrees warming or a sea level rise of a foot or so, it has to be “warmer than the last 100,000 years within the next 15 years” (1986) or “multi-metre sea level rises” (2011). I think he secretly relishes it.

  5. News just in!

    November 24, 2010
    According to the new results, the annual world average sea level rise is about 1 millimeter, or about 0.04 of an inch.
    Physorg

    So at this rate it should take about 2,000 years.

    H/t Steven Goddard

  6. “That’s a great quote. It just confirms that Hansen can’t be relied on, as he has some kind of morbid fascination with the idea of apocalypse.”

    He has a mental condition known as a Messiah Complex, where an individual believes himself to be the saviour of a group, time period, or in an extreme case, the world.

  7. Hmmm….

    James “Wrong Way” Hansen?

  8. The picture says “the People’s Liberation Army is a big school of Maoism”

  9. What do you think of the word DENIER? Is it immature name calling?

    I prefer the term “denialist” as a description for people who deny scientific evidence — creationists, pro-DDT advocates, anti-vaxxers, and so on.

    Are you suggesting that Jim Hansen has some connection to Beijing? In Beijing, the officials wonder about those who have frustrated action against global warming. On one hand, it makes it easier for the pro-pollution forces in Beijing. On the other hand, they would like to have cleaner air, and the lack of pressure from the U.S. plays into the hands of the Beijing forces that would like to continue doing nothing about warming.

    Jim Hansen is the exactly opposite.

    So the crude moniker it wrong factually, as well as a juvenile avoidance of discussion.

    • The Beijing bit stems from this post from 12th January.

    • “Pro-DDT advocates”?

      So you’re against the chemical that has saved more lives than any other? There is no peer-reviewed study you can point to that will say unequivocally that DDT presents a danger to humans.

      BTW, what’s with the avatar? “On the internet, no one knows your a dog”?

      • DDT has saved more lives than penicillin? I doubt it.

        In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences noted that DDT was one of the most beneficial chemicals ever devised by humans. That was on the way to calling for a complete ban on DDT manufacture because its harms far outweigh its benefits.

        How, do you claim, DDT saves lives now? At the peak of DDT use, about four million people a year died from malaria. When the U.S. banned DDT use on cotton, some seven years after DDT abuse had forced an end to the WHO campaign to eradicate malaria from the planet, about two million peopled died each year from malaria, worldwide.

        Today, the annual death toll from malaria is under 900,000. Malaria deaths keep falling, almost in lock-step with the reduction in DDT use.

        If we went solely on deaths, we’d have to assume that total elimination of DDT use might completely wipe out malaria deaths.

        Rufus was a good dog. I gather not even a dog has ever formed at attachment to you. You should try it sometime.

  10. Hansen is the idiot who pronounced that 7% of the intensity of hurricane Katrina was due to global warming. I’d love to see the math behind that 7%.

    Pointman

  11. Mervyn Sullivan

    When individuals like James Hansen make bold claims such as a sea level rise of many meters this century is “almost dead certain”, they lower themselves to a level below that of fortune tellers and ‘snake-oil salesmen’.

    It is individuals like Hansen that give scientists a bad name… by peddling such claims. How can Hansen possibly know that a sea level rise of many meters this century is “almost dead certain”? In the 1980′s he warned of catastrophic man-made global warming. It hasn’t happened. Perhaps he should just stop fudging the temperature data and start looking at the wide range of factors that really do influence weather and climate rather than pinning his reputation on CO2 being the key driver of global warming and climate change.

  12. Ed – you’re a dickhead. Go and troll somewhere else.

  13. Ed responded to Jimbo:


    What do you think of the word DENIER? Is it immature name calling?

    I prefer the term “denialist” as a description for people who deny scientific evidence — creationists, pro-DDT advocates, anti-vaxxers, and so on.

    You didn’t answer the question! Do you think that the term – or your preferred rendering – constitutes name calling? If it isn’t a deliberate derogatory substitute for ‘sceptic’, how isn’t it?

    To get a further understanding of your usages, does blaming heat for the bitter cold in the NH, constitute denialism, or is that an example of non-denialism?

    And could you please remind us again what is the main scientific evidence that we ‘deny’?

  14. The British Raj tried to abolish Suttee in 19th Century India.
    James clearly finds it hard to contemplate that life can survive his demise.
    If not by Fire then Flood. What an egotist this once respected man is. God help you JH but, never mind, the Grandkids will get on fine despite your attempted influence on their futures!

  15. You didn’t answer the question! Do you think that the term – or your preferred rendering – constitutes name calling? If it isn’t a deliberate derogatory substitute for ‘sceptic’, how isn’t it?

    How is it derogatory? “Skeptic” is inaccurate — there’s no real skepticism, is there? I find most people who want to be called skeptics instead have a rather religious devotion to frustrating something they don’t like — such as this post, which aims at cutting down James Hansen more than informing about anything.

    What would you suggest, that is accurate? Why do you find “denying” to be a derogatory action?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s