Hansen Study: Ice sheets to melt in a few decades, coastal cities uninhabitable

HansenIn 1988, climate scientist James Hansen announced to a select committee in Congress that over the next ten years, temperatures would increase .35 degrees Celsius. The actual increase was .11 degrees. Hansen overestimated his findings by 300 percent. Now Hansen has a new study coming out this week in the journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry warning that humanity could face a “sea level rise of several meters by the end of the century.” That’s a ten-foot-rise of sea levels, over 300 percent higher than what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted.

In fact, the IPCC conservatively estimates that if temperatures increase 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, we may see a three-foot-rise in sea levels. However, as an April 2015 studypublished in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports showed, “global warming was not progressing as fast as it would even under the most severe emissions scenarios as outlined by the IPCC.” The study indicated that climate models underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate variability, which leads to an “over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.”

Hansen’s new study, which was previewed by the Daily Beast today, says that the IPCC’s computer models are underestimating the sensitivity of ice sheets to rising temperatures. Hansen et al combined “ancient paleo-climate data with new satellite readings” and a new and improved computer model of the climate system to demonstrate that “ice sheets can melt in a matter of decades,” and not millenia. Sea level rise has been occurring at roughly the same rate since about 10,000 years ago.

If all this doom and gloom sounds a lot like the climatastrophe flick The Day After Tomorrow, you wouldn’t be too far off the mark. Much of that movie was based on research done by Hansen and incorporated into Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. “Parts of [our coastal cities] would still be sticking above the water,” Hansen told the Daily Beast, “but you couldn’t live there.” He also believes that averting warming by only 2 degrees Celsius by 2100 would create a “highly dangerous” future.

While some believe Hansen is a “climate seer,” the overall climate trend since his 1988 testimony has been more wrong than right and nobody foreshadowed there would be an abrupt standstill in the rate of global warming for the last 22 years. As The Daily Caller reported Friday, “after September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 22nd year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.”

The new study by Hansen and 16 colleagues believes even averting the 2.0 degree temperature increase would still not be a safe “guardrail” that the media, and some politicians, would have the world believe. Hansen also thinks the IPCC is not estimating how quickly the ice sheets can melt, which would cause catastrophic sea level rise and would “render coastal cities such as New York, London and Shanghai uninhabitable.” Except current observations show that Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic are not melting at the alarming rates as predicted in his new study or the IPCC’s reports.

Ironically, ten years after his congressional testimony, Hansen wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October 1998 that “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” In other words, the forces that govern global warming are so poorly understood that long-term predictions, like his latest study, are impossible to make. He also wrote that moving forward, “scientists should use multiple scenarios to define a range of possible climate outcomes.”

That’s because the climate is so complicated that not a single study or computer model can predict future climate trends with any accuracy. No one forecasted or predicted that since the start of the 21st century, there would be no statistical warming based on the satellite-derived dataset. And no one could have predicted in 1988, when Hansen gave his congressional testimony and declared global warming was no longer a theory, that his prediction of a .35 degree temperature increase over 10 years would be off by 300 percent.

Hansen also believes that to avert 1.5 or even 2.0 degrees of warming the world needs to “make the price of fossil fuels honest.” If that sounds more like advocacy than science, that’s because it is. The Daily Beast reports this means making “the market price of gasoline and other products derived from fossil fuels reflect the enormous costs that burning those fuels currently externalizes onto society as a whole.” In other words, a carbon tax.

Some climate activist groups, like Citizens Climate Lobby, also want to “tax pollution, pay people,” much in the same way oil companies pay Alaskans a yearly stipend in compensation for the “impact their pipelines have on the state.” And while some believe there has been a “spectacular boom in wind and solar energy,” one need only look to Europe to see the rising costs being generated from power derived from renewable sources.

“Subsidies for new wind farms and solar power plants are set to be cut as ministers move to protect millions of families from rising energy bills,” according to yesterday’s The Sunday Telegraph. And the Daily Mail is reporting on “a ‘big reset’ of the support given to the renewable industry is expected to be announced within weeks, including cuts to funding for the solar industry.” All those green taxes showing up in people’s energy bills to subsidize renewable companies are having a powerful influence on Euro-lawmakers. Industry experts believe these green subsidies will be significantly slashed in the next few weeks.

Hansen, formerly a NASA scientist, is also a climate activist and has been arrested numerous times at climate protests. His new paper, which will undoubtedly provide the political salvo needed by countries ahead of the Paris Climate Talks, opines the world should be doing everything it can to mitigate the use of so-called greenhouse gases.

His new study will be formally released by the journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry this week.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (17)

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Hansen also believes that to avert 1.5 or even 2.0 degrees of warming the world needs to “make the price of fossil fuels honest.”[/quote]

    Let’s all be thankful Hansen is not warning of overpopulation, and wanting to “make the price of food honest.” Or at least he has not come out and [i]said[/i] so, even though his activism [i]is[/i] having the same overall effect.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    With his track record of predictions we can be certain there will be little if any scary warming .

    When you are off a prediction by 300 % as a” scientist”that says all you need to know about your hypothesis and methodology. All peer reviewed of course .

    This guys ship has sailed .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John

      |

      Imagine if a doctor said you had three tumors and after he cut you open said, oops, there’s only one. Or worse, found nine! I think most people would get a new doctor! Who trusts anyone who’s prognostications are so horribly off or grossly overestimated? Well, maybe the EPA, but that’s another story. This is a simple indication Hansen doesn’t have a clue about what he’s talking about. And if NOAA still can’t predict when an El Nino event will occur, possibly one of the most studied global events on the planet, how we can anyone possibly predict what the temperature will be in 100 years? It’s utter lunacy what the MSM and so-called scientists have bought into or sold. It seems the public are the only ones noticing that something stinks in the whole climate arena.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Imagine the American Lung Association calling carbon dioxide “carbon pollution”… oh wait… never mind.

        The ALA didn’t buy into lunacy, they were bought by lunatics…

        [i]Exactly what kind of nefarious plans by “polluters and some members of Congress” to damage public health is the American Lung Association seeking to thwart? One of their efforts is targeted at defeating a bill that seeks to stop the EPA from doing an end run around Congress and regulating greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide – under the Clean Air Act. Money can’t buy passion like that, but if it could, the [b]164 EPA grants to various American Lung Association groups totaling over $20,000,000 within the past decade[/b]…[/i]

        http://dailysignal.com/2011/05/19/epa-dollars-doled-out-to-environmentalist-activist-groups/

        Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Since the IPCC is a [b]political[/b] organization dedicated to world “de-industrialization” and run by avowed Marxists, 300% is well within their acceptable margin of error.

    [i]”One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    – Ottmar Edenhoffer, top IPCC official[/i]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    GR82DRV Political as you say . So the honest thing to do would be to rebrand
    the whole scam to reflect reality.
    It has almost nothing to do the environment so Climate Change is more appropriately rebranded .

    Political Climate Change seems more fitting.
    Then some real conversations about their agenda can be put before the public instead of them hiding behind the scary global warming hoax .

    Let them explain their plans for;
    rapid depopulation
    one global government
    carbon taxes
    Time for them to be honest .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JB

    |

    I see the boys are still playing at who can cry wolf the loudest!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    I OBJECT to calling
    ” atmospheric physics and chemistry “
    a journal.

    A journal of what ?
    Personal opinion and idiocy ?

    Hansen is going to be published there ?
    He should be denying them the right to publish !

    It’s like publishing in any of the various scandal sheets.

    If Hansen had any professional dignity or pride, he’d be working vigorously to deny them access and publishing anything.

    Imagine if Einstein decided to publish his new findings in The Daily News.

    Proof positive that Hansen is a phony.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate is expressed in steps as follows:
    1) Atmospheric CO2 has been identified as a possible climate change forcing. Forcings, according to the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC, have units of J s-1 m-2.
    2) A thermal forcing (or some function thereof) acting for a time period accumulates energy.
    3) If the forcing varies (or not), the energy is determined by the time-integral of the forcing (or function thereof)
    4) Energy, in units J m-2, divided by the effective thermal capacitance (J K-1 m-2) equals average global temperature (AGT) change (K).
    5) Thus (in consistent units) the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level (or some function thereof) times a scale factor must closely equal the average global temperature change.

    6) When this is applied to multiple corroborated estimates of paleo CO2 and average global temperature (such as extant examples from past glaciations/interglacials ice cores, and proxy data for the entire Phanerozoic eon), the only thing that consistently works is if the effect of CO2 is negligible and something else is causing the temperature change.

    Identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) is at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT, R^2 = 0.97+ since before 1900).

    The ongoing average global temperature trend is down. Monthly reported temperatures are being temporarily propped up by el Nino.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      William Bill Fish

      |

      [b]Dan Pandburn[/b] Another MSC in Mechanical Engineer masquerading as a Climate Scientist. Found some interesting comments about your math… Ian Forrester -[i][b] Pangburn, keep writing your stupid equations, it just shows how lacking in mathematical, statistical and scientific skills you and other deniers are.[/b][/i]

      I’m not a climatologist, mathematician, physicist or an engineer etc. I’ll let these guys tear you apart as they are a lot smarter than both you and I.

      Dan Pangburn writes

      The equation calculates temperatures since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%. Including or not including the change to CO2 level made no significant difference.

      When calibrated by temperature measurements prior to 1990 the equation accurately predicted the temperatures since 1990.

      The temperature trend has been approximately flat for a decade. In that same decade (through September 2011) the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by over 23% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001. I wonder how wide this separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising temperature will need to get for some people to realize that they must have missed something.
      on November 11, 2011 at 11:24 am | Reply frank — Decoding SwiftHack
      [u]The equation calculates temperatures since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%.[/u]
      [i][b]No, as explained at least twice,[/b][/i] you’re using a correlation metric, not an accuracy metric, so the most you can say is that your equation calculates “something which is sort of correlated with temperatures since 1895″ with a “correlation” of 88%.

      The number series A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, … is strongly correlated with the number series B = 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, … But clearly A is not an accurate estimate of B; it’s way off.
      — frank
      More can be found at…
      https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dan-pangburn/

      So much for mechanical engineering math in climate calculations…eh? You should stick to creating and building mechanical devices. You may be made to look so foolish.

      Here’s another tear down of your work. http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.ca/2012/12/agw-mistake-disclosed-by-dan-pangburn.html

      I particularly like [b][i]”The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes”[/b][/i] Sorta defines you to a ‘T’…eh?

      The scary thing is that the scientifically ignorant on this page and other denier pages think you are the cat’s ass, you baffle them with your erroneous equations and that ignorant support gives you the [b][i]illusory superiority, mistakenly rating your ability much higher than average’.[/b][/i]

      [b][i]The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.[/b][/i]
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18&p=23 and look at the comments, you are shot down again!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Dan Pangburn

        |

        Some folks are willfully blind or maybe just really stubborn.

        Apparently it took a mechanical engineer to figure it out.

        You quote early posts by me and snarky responses from an unenlightened few.

        Perhaps you failed to notice my current finding which matches reported average global temperatures since before 1900 with an accuracy of more than 97%. Calling that ‘cherry picking’ is ludicrous.

        Apparently you lack the engineering science skill to understand any of this. See if you can find someone who understands the relation between mathematics and the physical world (most mechanical engineers do) to explain it to you.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          William Bill Fish

          |

          Yes you are willfully blind. Have you read your critics? Your skin must be a foot thick, you just don’t get it!

          Which part of the Dunning-Kruger effect don’t you understand. I’ll repeat…[b][i] “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes”[/b][/i] Let me know and I’ll try to help you!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Pure Projection there Wee Willy. See your still quoting your zero credibility miss-information sites!

            How well does your serial thread bombing and lying actually pay?

  • Avatar

    prestigio

    |

    I
    can make a more
    accurate prediction

    hansen will die
    within
    the next three decades

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Aido

    |

    At this point, I’m confused.

    Why is anyone with a brain listening to this jerk?

    His hockey stick will go down in history as an example of how not to do science.

    His predictions of temperature were off by 300%.

    In what kind of surreal world can he get published in anything?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The hockey stick was Mann.

      As to why people listen to him. Why do people listen to Obama? Why do people listen to the Pope? Why do people listen to the UN?

      Because they are sheep, or wolves in sheep’s clothing.

      [img]http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/fabian_society.jpg[/img]

      Reply

    • Avatar

      GR82DRV

      |

      Aido, It’s understandable to be confused. That’s because you’re trying to use logic.

      The [i]climate left [/i]is just trying to buy time – they’re not interested in being right. All they need to do is front this fraud (with help from their accomplices in the media) for as long as it takes to achieve a political coup that results in the public accepting the loss of personal liberties and confiscation of private wealth.

      To the left, climate change itself is totally irrelevant, and only viewed a convenient tool to justify their fraudulent bid for power. This is part and parcel of the history of Marxism and should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the movement.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.