25 metre rises in sea level, tropical temperatures in England, and widespread crop failures are only some of the predictions from Dr James Hansen. Here’s a selection of his predictions from the archives.
This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America:
Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.
Staying in 1986 for the moment, we have this unequivocal prediction:
“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.
Going back to 1982, we find Hansen arguing that if fossil fuel use was restricted, England might be a tropical paradise by 2050. If we carried on as normal, the world would be back in the sort of heat last seen in the age of the dinosaurs.
Hansen presented results of studies which indicated likely climate changes under different energy policies.
If there were slow growth in the use of hydrocarbon fuels, the world in the middle of the next century would be as warm as it was 125,000 years ago, when lions, elephants and other tropical animals roamed a balmy southern England.
Pursuing present plans for coal and oil, Hansen found, the climate in the middle of the 21st century “would approach the warmth of the age of the dinosaurs”
By 1989, far from toning it down, Hansen was starting to really turn up the heat, predicting totally unprecedented warming so far as mankind was concerned:
“By the year 2050 we’re going to have tremendous climate changes, far outside what man has ever experienced” said James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century earth’s average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, making crops fail, and raising sea levels to flood low-lying coastal areas.
And in 2006, he was still going strong. Unabashed by the failure of the world to warm significantly, Hansen was still predicting massive temperature increases. Remember that in the interview below, with a British newspaper, he is talking in degrees Celsius for temperature, and in metres (one metre = 3 feet) for sea level rise:
“The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.”
That’s a 25 metre – 75 feet – rise in sea level by the end of the century. So far, it doesn’t look like this one will fare any better than the rest.
hauntingthelibrary 
Funny that!
9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010
Here is one of his other predictions:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Highway
Haunting The Library – keep an eye on this link
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
Hansen, the Mother Shipton of the modern age.
Hahahaha – Hansen should have put his predictions into vague, mystical quatrains like Nostradamus, and in French, too.
Ah, maybe not. Then his funding wouldn’t have been so high. Alarmism is all about funding, so if you yell “Wolf!” they need to not mistake it for “Ze Rabbit!” Zose silly Americains, zey would not know ze rabbit, she is ze killer rabbit and very, very dangerouse. So, yell, “Wolf,” anyway, so ze dollars keep “a’coming” as zey say.
Actually, 25 metres is somewhere in the region of 81 ft, so all those six-footers living 25 metres above sea level can wipe that smirk off their faces.
One by one these wild doomsday predictions are coming back to haunt the Chicken Littles. When I started to doubt the whole Global Warming thing my first thought was that time will tell as the predictions that were then being made either happened or failed to happen. The hallmark of good science is that it makes predictions which are later verified. It is not necessarily a sign of bad science when predictions don’t work out because at the cutting edge everyone is still learning and refining what they know. However, anyone making confident predictions of the future when all of their previous predictions have spectacularly failed, is unlikely to be taken very seriously. At least we hope not.
Please do not insult Mother Shipton, the sage of Shiptonthorpe and Knaresborough. She had wisdom.
Good thing Hansen isn’t a baseball player with such an average… and all those strike outs!
Pingback: 5 Star Blogging « Autonomous Mind
Hansen would do well to consider the work of Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong – in particular their:
Global Warming Analogies Forecasting Project Applying structured analogies to the global warming alarm movement
Abstract of the paper they are preparing:
But for some reason, I get the rather distinct impression that Hansen has been so blinded for so long by his devotion to the tenets of his ideology, that he would miss the point by a country mile.
“he would miss the point by a country mile.”
Because he’s a country member (with apologies for an old, old joke)
And yet this stupifyingly obtuse agitprop cadre continues to masquerade as a researcher, broadcasting wholesale asininities in furtherance of an incredibly ill-willed, destructive political agenda.
By this time next year, long-overdue official scrutiny may inflict on the Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. what their peculating scams have done for public policy. Ehrlich, Holdren, latterly Keith Farnish and their ilk, already have a lot to answer for.
I wonder if any of these people have read ‘The Allegory of the Cave’?
Messiah Complex: A mental condition where an individual believes himself to be the saviour of a group, time period, or in an extreme case, the world.
In this case he’s a messiah in his own imaginary world.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”
H L Mencken
The excellent Mencken – thanks for reminding me of that quote.
I always liked the one where he said “Democracy is theory that people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard”
Pingback: Far from being the warmest year on record… « Autonomous Mind
Pingback: The Past Is The Key To The Future | Real Science
Pingback: Hansen 1986 : Temperatures To Warm 10C By 2050 | Real Science
Hansen went of the rails ages ago. He was probably hiding from a death-train.
We need to identify Dr Hansen’s boss at NASA and put some heat on this bureaucrat to get rid of Dr Hansen for cause. He has advocated destruction of coal fired power plants and civil disobience to the point of deliberate destruction of property. This man is a looney bin and should be remove, and possibly confined in an institution, before he does any more damage. It will take decades to undo the harm he has done to the US and world economy!
Bill Yarber
You have hit the nail squarely on the center of its head, Sir!
It is my understanding that Hanson’s boss is an actual rational person. He has contradicted Hanson’s rants on several occasions. He has expressed frustration with Hanson’s continuing self-promotion and grandstanding on this issue on which there is so much conflicting data. Hanson has repeatedly sounded the alarm that his bosses were “trying to silence him” (as if!) so the political left and media are keen to attack anyone that even asks him to show up for work on time. As a result, Hanson is a loose cannon who can say anything yet is essentially immune from any administrative restraint or oversight. He claims to speak for NASA but be advised he does not. A sad commentary on the agency that once was the world leader in science and engineering.
Pingback: IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End to Democracy to Solve Global Warming « Anti Oligarch
25 meters of extra water over every ocean (plus presumably an increase in lakes and seas) on Earth? That’s a hell of a lot of water.
Is there even enough frozen water available to go that high? I mean, if the temperature rose high enough to melt every single square meter of ice on the planet, how high would that take the oceans?
This is quite easy to estimate.
The area of the world’s oceans is about 361 million km2. [1]
The land area of Greenland is 2,166,086 km2, of which 410,449 km2 is ice-free and 1,755,637 km2 is ice-covered. [2]
The average depth of ice on Greenland is 1.5 km thick. [3]
Therefore, the volume of ice on Greenland is 1,755,637 km2 x 1.5 km = 2,633,456 km3
If all the ice on Greenland melted, this would cause sea level to rise by
2,633,456 km3 / 361,000,000 km2 = 7.3m
The land area of Antarctic is about 14 million km2, of which 280,000 km2 is ice-free and 13.72 million km2 is ice-covered) (est.) [4]
The average depth of ice on Antarctic is 2 km thick. [5]
Therefore, the volume of ice on Antarctic is 13,720,000 km2 x 2 km = 27,440,000 km3
If all the ice on Antarctic melted, this would cause sea level to rise by
27,440,000 km3 / 361,000,000 km2 = 76m
If all this ice melted, this would cause sea level to rise by
(2,633,456 km3 + 27,440,000 km3) / 361,000,000 km2 = 83.3m
You can see there is easily enough ice on Greenland and Antarctic to cause sea level to rise by at least 25m if it were all to melt.
Even if the all the melt water were spread over the entire surface of the globe (510 million km2), which it could never do because some land is higher than this, then the rise in sea level would be still be 59m.
Whether any of this is ever likely to happen is not something on which I am going to express a view.
This is only a rough estimate. Apologises if I have transcribed any figures incorrectly. You may assume whatever other values you wish, add in the Himalayan glaciers and any other bodies of ice you can find, allow for the enlargement of the oceans as sea level rises and calculate the sea level rise from the difference of two spheres (not that it makes much difference).
[1] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/EricCheng.shtml, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
[2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html
[3] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/EmmanuelleStJean.shtml
[4] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html
[5] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MaySy.shtml
Thanks for posting John, but as you say the scenario is unlikely in the extreme. As the IPCC themselves point out:
“East Antarctic ice sheet:
Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20°C, a situation that has not occurred for at least the last 15 million years (Barker et al., 1999), and which is far more than thought possible under any scenario of climatic change currently under consideration. In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years”
There’s an excellent post looking at this dispassionately with extensive referencing here.
I was careful not to express a view. I simply addressed Jim T’s question as to whether there is enough land ice to cause a 25m sea level rise. Clearly there is. However, no one, except perhaps Hansen, is suggesting it is suddenly all about to melt. The historic rate of sea level rise seems to be a few millimetres per year.
I reviewed Johnston when doing my sums. He provides some useful data and references, and certainly makes his view clear.
Sea level is driven by various things, of which ice is the principal one. Thermal expansion of the seawater also makes a contribution. As is common with these things, the closer one looks the more complex it gets. There are even mechanisms hypothesised that would reduce sea level with global warming: increased evaporation leading to increased precipitation (snow) and accumulation at the poles.
Anyone interested in understanding sea level rise and variability might be interested in this recent conference. The Oral and <a href="http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Posters.html"Poster presentations are online. Cazenave is recommended.
I was careful not to express a view. I simply addressed Jim T’s question as to whether there is enough land ice to cause a 25m sea level rise. Clearly there is. However, no one, except perhaps Hansen, is suggesting it is suddenly all about to melt. The historic rate of sea level rise seems to be a few millimetres per year.
I reviewed Johnston when doing my sums. He provides some useful data and references, and certainly makes his view clear.
Sea level is driven by various things, of which ice is the principal one. Thermal expansion of the seawater also makes a contribution. As is common with these things, the closer one looks the more complex it gets. There are even mechanisms hypothesised that would reduce sea level with global warming: increased evaporation leading to increased precipitation (snow) and accumulation at the poles.
Anyone interested in understanding sea level rise and variability might be interested in this recent conference. The Oral and <a href="http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Posters.html"Poster presentations are online. Cazenave is recommended.
I was careful not to express a view. I simply addressed Jim T’s question as to whether there is enough land ice to cause a 25m sea level rise. Clearly there is. However, no one, except perhaps Hansen, is suggesting it is suddenly all about to melt. The historic rate of sea level rise seems to be a few millimetres per year.
I reviewed Johnston when doing my sums. He provides some useful data and references, and certainly makes his view clear.
Sea level is driven by various things, of which ice is the principal one. Thermal expansion of the seawater also makes a contribution. As is common with these things, the closer one looks the more complex it gets. There are even mechanisms hypothesised that would reduce sea level with global warming: increased evaporation leading to increased precipitation (snow) and accumulation at the poles.
Anyone interested in understanding sea level rise and variability might be interested in this recent conference. The Oral and Poster presentations are online. Cazenave is recommended.
Sorry, third time lucky!
Please delete the previous two postings with faulty HTML and this message.
Fascinating to understand the genesis of Hansen’s alarmism, IIRC. Years ago, as an astrophysicist he looked at Venus and Mars and concluded they were two dreadful warnings to us. Mars had so little CO2 atmosphere that it suffered cold; Venus had so much it had gone into runaway GHG warming. Hansen took those lessons on board and never looked back.
However, there are two little problems. Mars first. Sure it’s got almost no atmosphere. But what it has got includes enough CO2 to exceed ours by an order of magnitude. So why is it not baking? Now Venus. Probes discovered that Venus emits more energy than she absorbs. Her core is giving out heat. No wonder she is hot. Doesn’t need to be GHG at all.
I think James Hansen is out of kilter with more recent research on the subject. The climate consensus believes that today we are experiencing temperatures that are unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years. If temperatures will only get back to those of 125,000 years ago with some sizeable warming, then it is still within the natural range.
As others have said, we need to judge complex theories by their predictive ability. The climate models have consistently over-predicted changes in average temperature, with Hansen being one of the more extreme failures.
Hansen at least has some viable ideas about nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, on AGW he’s gone completely insane.
Reminds one of Lyndon Larouche.
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
Pingback: Global Warming, Global Cooling or Global Taxing? - Page 279 - PPRuNe Forums
Pingback: For Your Consideration – January 8th « John R. Bolton
Hansen’s sycophants has not arrived here….. yet.
Pingback: Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Page 9 - Political Wrinkles
About Hansen and his behaviour, scary predictions and alarmism! Doesn’t he have a boss who can discipline him? How can he be allowed to be such a ‘loose cannon’ in a reputable agency like NASA? How is it that NASA just keeps tolerating this man?
Jim T wrote:
“25 meters of extra water over every ocean (plus presumably an increase in lakes and seas) on Earth? That’s a hell of a lot of water.
Is there even enough frozen water available to go that high? I mean, if the temperature rose high enough to melt every single square meter of ice on the planet, how high would that take the oceans?”
–
IF all the ice on Earth melted, sea level would rise 68 metres.
The bad news for Jimbo, is that sea level won’t rise much in his lifetime, he’s only 2 months younger than me.
Pingback: Global coldening | LOVE FREEDOM TRUTH
Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan 13th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet
NOAA Tides & Currents has a sea level trends area which predicts future sea level change based on actual tidal data gathered at various locations throughout the globe going back as far as 1850. Some predictions and years data collected follow along with website address info. The trend and prediction for the islands are particularly interesting since we keep hearing about Vanuatu, Mauritius, etc. How about some real data in the middle of the ocean like Wake Is. and Midway Atoll. Here’s a hint – Midway can expect seas to rise approximately 3 inches (.23 feet) in the next century based on current trends. Not the catastrophe we’ve been led to believe. Glacial rebound has areas like Alaska rising. Guam is trending to rise, too. Probably due to subduction. Lets look at the locii of leftist insanity – SD 0.68 ft; LA 0.27 ft; SF 0.66 ft; Seattle 0.68 ft; Astoria, OR -0.10 ft. Why all the whining? Another thing to keep in mind is that this data was gathered during the timeframe when the so called AGW was occuring, industrial revolution, fossil fuels usage upsurge, etc.
The Battery, NY,NY; 1856 – 2006; 0.91 feet in 100 yrs
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The mean sea level trend is 2.77 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1856 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.91 feet in 100 years.
Boston, MA; 1921 – 2006; 0.86 in 100 yrs
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
The mean sea level trend is 2.63 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.18 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1921 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.86 feet in 100 years.
Wake Is.; 1950 – 2006; 0.63 feet in 100 yrs
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1890000
The mean sea level trend is 1.91 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.59 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1950 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.63 feet in 100 years.
Midway Atoll; 1947 – 2006; 0.23 feet
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1619910
The mean sea level trend is 0.70 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.54 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1947 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.23 feet in 100 years.
Thanks for taking the time to post those references. I will be making use of them in future!
Much appreciated,
HtL.
Pingback: Sir John Houghton to Clarify Climate Change « Manicbeancounter’s Weblog
Difficult, but I would suggest that when a scientist or a group makes predictions (or “scenarios” as they like to call them) we should look at their track record. If they have a history of making sober, well-founded predictions that are validated by later events, then they should be taken seriously – not necessarily accepted (anyone can be wrong on any subject obviously) but taken seriously. The problem is, many people involved in global warming activism have an awful track record of shrill predictions of impending doom and never seem to get called on it.
Pingback: Rapture Watch - Page 3 - Political Wrinkles
Pingback: The Positives of Global Warming in Context « Manicbeancounter’s Weblog
Pingback: Do global warming alarmists exhibit traits of religious extremism? - Page 15
Pingback: Donald Brown Tactics
Hansen’s continued [implicit] endorsement by NASA is amazing in itself. That someone can go on record for so long and be pretty well wrong for the entire time, and remain unimpeded…there’s something really wrong with all of it.
Hansen is fully entitled to his claims, as the actual data he is referring to is available to everyone. But such claims are normally restricted to individuals with mental impairments, and would rarely be able to look after themselves, let alone work and make reports to offer to the world’s politicians.
The world is full of similar people saying the world will end at various points in time, and we will all be taken up in a rapture and the messiah is coming, and a few are reported occasionally such as Harold Camping and rightly ridiculed by 99% of the population. But James Hansen is the one who got away. He has a long career of psychotic claims not possible based on the known data, and should have been quietly retired as soon as it became clear he wasn’t on the same page as the rest of the world, but like so many previous dictatorships they need their mad scientists to claim the Jews must all die and the Aryan race must be kept pure, preferably with eugenics and genetic engineering. Mengele was an ideal example of such a mouthpiece used by a corrupt political system, and Hansen, by causing fuel poverty and starvation through crop restrictions etc is no less a criminal.
Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 1633
Thank you for the references, have used them here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/06/direct-statistical-simulation/#comment-300996
Pingback: has the cold weather changed your view on GW? | Salvation Food