Facebook Twitter Youtube

NASA’s James Hansen gets dissed by global warming establishment! Warmists Say Sea Level Rise study based on ‘flimsy evidence’ & ‘rife with speculation’

Former Top NASA Scientist James Hansen Predicts Catastrophic Rise In Sea Levels – ‘Projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years.’ – The paper has already ruffled some, including Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein, who said on Twitter that he would not cover it — primarily because it had not yet been peer-reviewed, a process that allows other scientists to critique the work. The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney asked other climate experts to weigh in on the paper. While many said it raised key discussion points, Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research called it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.”

#

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of upcoming film ‘Climate Hustle’ (www.ClimateHustle.com):
 
Morano: “James Hansen’s new paper ratcheting up future sea level rise numbers is consistent with the new strategy of the global warming activists. Given that current sea level rise rates are not alarming, the only way climate activists can claim anything is ‘worse than we thought’ is to make more dire predictions of the future.
Simply making scarier predictions of the future in order to alarm policymakers is not ‘good science.’ Claiming that climate change impacts are ‘worse than we thought’ because predictions are now more frightening is a well worn playbook of the climate movement.
Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.
It is not surprising that James Hansen — a man who has been arrested nearly half a dozen times protesting ‘global warming’ and who has endorsed a book calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization — would continue to make scary predictions. The world needs to take a collective yawn at Hansen’s latest claims and ask how in the world was this man ever allowed to be in charge of the NASA temperature datasets!” – End Morano statement.
#
NASA’s James Hansen to Retire – Marc Morano Statement: ‘Celebrate! It’s A Happy Day for Science! Hansen’s sad legacy will serve as a cautionary tale for future scientists. Hansen chose ideology, activism, stagecraft and handcuffs over science. He will be sorely missed by global warming skeptics, as he made our life so much easier by just being himself. NASA & Science deserved much better than James Hansen.’
Global Warming Establishment severs ties with Hansen on sea level rise scare study: 

Warmist publication Mashable on James Hansen’s new sea level scare paper: “..red flag..study’s conclusions so contradict [UN IPCC] consensus views expressed last year.”

Mashable’s Andrew Freedman: ‘The godfather of global warming’s scary sea level rise prediction is getting the cold shoulder.”

NYT’s Andrew Revkin on Hansen’s sea level scare paper: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”

NYT: UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth on Hansen sea level rise paper: “Rife with speculation..many conjectures & huge extrapolation based on quite flimsy evidence.”

Michael Mann admits Hansen’s SLR estimates “prone to a very large “extrapolation error”

Embedded image permalink

 

Science by press release: Journalists received “summary” of Hansen’s paper via PR firm

Scientists: Hansen’s wild sea level rise claims are hardly new. We’ve debunked them before here: Current Wisdom: Hansen’s Extreme Sea Level Rise Projections Drowning…

New scientific findings undermine James Hansen’s extreme sea level rise projections from human-caused climate change.

Hansen’s “scientific” paper prescribes global political policy of “near-global” “carbon fee or tax”
Embedded image permalink

Ironic: New James Hansen study contradicts climate ‘consensus’ so warmists shun it. Embedded image permalink

Warming leads to Cooling: Sea level rise could lead to a cooler, stormier world — Says unpublished work from NASA’s Jim Hansen – ‘A catastrophic rise in sea level before the end of the century could have a hitherto-unforeseen side effect. Melting icebergs might cool the seas around Greenland and Antarctica so much that the average surface temperature of the entire planet falls by a few degrees’
# 
 
Related Links:
NASA’s resident ex-con: Top NASA global warming scientist James Hansen arrested (again) in White House protest over pipeline — $180,000 taxpayer-paid salary – ‘Arrested alongside actress Daryl Hannah; Adam Werbach, founder of Sierra Club; Bill McKibben’ — ‘Hansen has been arrested at least 3 times before in protests over climate issues, in 2009, 2010, & 2011’
Warmist New claim: ‘Recent sea level rise is highest in 6,000 years’ — DEBUNKED

Latest warmist claim on sea level here.

Debunking here  – Also see: Claim: ‘No change in sea level until modern times – but that change is dwarfed by sea levels of the past‘

Rebuttal: Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration. 

Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.
The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.
 – [Climate Depot Note: According to tide gauges, Sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04 mm)]
#
More Background on James Hansen:
NASA’s James Hansen to Retire – Marc Morano Statement: ‘Celebrate! It’s A Happy Day for Science! Hansen’s sad legacy will serve as a cautionary tale for future scientists. Hansen chose ideology, activism, stagecraft and handcuffs over science. He will be sorely missed by global warming skeptics, as he made our life so much easier by just being himself. NASA & Science deserved much better than James Hansen.’

Background on Hansen: 1) NASA’s James Hansen, a muse to Eco-Terrorists?! Watch Now: Morano on Fox News: ‘NASA’s resident ex-con James Hansen is inspiring these people to potential acts of eco terrorism’ — Morano: ‘He was arrested for the 3rd or 4th time this past week protesting the pipeline. Hansen has endorsed a book calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization, for blowing up dams and razing cities to the ground and turning off our greenhouse gas machine’  —

2) Flashback: NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ — Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine   —    

3) Flashback: Greenie David Roberts of Grist turns on NASA’s Hansen: ‘I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist *terribly*. All influence lost’ —

4) Flashback 2009: One of James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic — Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’   —

5) Alert: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Has One Week Left To Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ — Only 7 Days left!  —   

6)  Watch Now: Morano rips NASA’s James Hansen: ‘Hansen said we only have 4 years left to save the planet in Jan.2009, We passed another Mayan calendar deadline’  —

7) Flashback 2008: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom -Get the Facts on James Hansen— ‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?

Former NASA scientist James Hansen in 1986 Warned of Up to Five degrees F warming by 2010

New York Times – June 11, 1986: “Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.”

Embedded image permalink

 Reality Check on Hansen in 2013:  ‘No global warming for 17 years 3 months’

 

In 1986, The World’s Greatest Climatologist James Hansen Predicted Nine Degrees US Warming By The 2020′s

ScreenHunter_406 Dec. 07 05.21

Former NASA global warming scientist James Hansen finally admits part of green movement operates like a ‘a religion of sorts’

Hansen to CNN: Selling nuclear energy to environmentalists is a tough pitch. Hansen acknowledged that many of them won’t easily buy into it. Parts of the community operate like ‘a religion of sorts, which makes it very difficult,’ Hansen said. ‘They’re not all objectively looking at the pros and cons.’

‘Only NUCLEAR power can SAVE HUMANITY’, say Global Warming high priests – Schism within the environmental ‘religion’

James Hansen denounces ‘big green’: ‘Large environmental orgs have become one of the biggest obstacles to solving the climate problem’ – Hansen: ‘After I joined other scientists in requesting the leaders of Big Green to reconsider their adamant opposition to nuclear power, and was rebuffed, I learned from discussions with them the major reason: They feared losing donor support. Money, it seems, is the language they understand. Thus my suggestion: The next time you receive a donation request, doubtless accompanied with a photo of a cuddly bear or the like, toss it in the waste bin and return a note saying that you will consider a donation in the future, if they objectively evaluate the best interests of young people and nature.’

Share:

Marc Morano

Marc Morano

30 Responses

  1. Jim Hansen has just confessed his ignorance of Earth science or that he is lying about everything, ot both. If we melt all the ice in all the glaciers and that on Greenland, which is all we can melt as long as Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees we can raise the seas 20 feet, but with the sun’s output that will take 10,000 years! All these guys are looking for grants from the Federal government, our money!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

    1. “Jim Hansen has just confessed his ignorance of Earth science”

      If you don’t like Dr. Hansen’s predictions, make your own:

      If you understand each and every previous time in Earth’s history CO₂ went as high as it is today, complete polar meltdown followed, how likely is it there will be a different outcome this time around?

      “both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

        1. It appears you have found a reliable paper!

          So what?

          What does the historical pace of sea level rise have to do with any future projection, and why were you unable to make such a projection?

          If we aren’t headed for complete polar meltdown and 75 meters of total sea level rise, just from the CO₂ we’ve already added to the air, why isn’t there a single example in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history of polar ice caps being able to withstand CO₂ so high?

          “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

          earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

          1. How many ways are you wrong, today? Let me count the ways.

            1. I have found other ‘reliable papers’ in the past. No surprise there. The only surprise is you admitting it … albeit, followed by your absurd “so what?”

            “So what?” See #2.

            2. The paper disputes the ongoing narrative that sea level rise has already been accelerating. YOU, of course, are one who has repeated, countless times, that erroneous and scaremongering myth.

            3. I’m as capable of making projections as you are. I project that the myth of CO2 caused climate change will die a quiet and ignoble death … about the time that science matures and overcomes the faux science that has resulted from political corruption, and closed-minded ideologies.

            4. Provide proof that ‘we are headed for complete polar meltdown.

            5. Provide proof of historical CO2 levels and corresponding polar ice conditions for the previous 4.5 billion years.

            Provide proof of causation for all time periods. Provide proof that there were no other causes/explanations … besides CO2.

            6. Why do you repeatedly use the term ‘fresh water’ when referring to Greenland and Antarctica? Who’s going there to get their drinking water?

            7. It would take hundreds of thousands of years to melt all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica. In fact, it would take tens of thousands of years to melt 1% of that ice.

            8. In the last sentence of your quote “… if all the ice were returned to the oceans.” … the operative word, of course, is IF.

            9. I see you have chosen to ignore the fact that you accidentally quoted from, and linked to, a skeptical website, yesterday.

            10. Still crazy after all these years.

            1. “How many ways are you wrong, today?”

              In no ways… or were you talking to yourself again?

              I asked you a question. Did you miss it?

              If you understand polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?

              Very likely? Not so very likely? Very unlikely? What do you think?

              “A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.”

              http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

              1. So … you decided to ignore all that and double-down on jack-assery. Hardly a surprise … once a pretender, always a pretender.

                Still crazy after all these years.

                1. “once a pretender, always a pretender”
                  CB has provided much evidence that she is a CAGW-by-CO2 alarmist climate cult pretender. She trolls her debunked “polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high” nonsense all over the internet (HelenW documented it here: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/03/06/chevrongate-capitalism-finally-grows-a-pair-in-the-war-on-big-green/#comment-1279556845 ), even though she’s shown that it is absolutely false, as the Earth entered an ice age during the Ordovician Period when CO2 level was over 4,000ppm.

                  After I showed her that, she doubled down on stupid, and claimed that CO2 levels during the Ordovician dropped by 99% to 50ppm, even though she could provide no empirical evidence of such a preposterous claim. As you may recall, I exposed her scientific illiteracy of carbon isotopes during that exchange here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042

                  1. I just reviewed, and vaguely recall, those exchanges. Thanks. His idea of ‘winning’ seems to be wearing out his opponents by completely ignoring their comments and simply repeating his nonsense … over and over and over …

                    I haven’t seen “CB” on Breitbart recently; I think he got bounced. People tend to get fed up with the constant barrage of faux science and personal attacks that he repeats … over and over and over …

                    I think “CB’s” posts can best be described as obtuse deceit.

        2. Church and White found an acceleration … but it was due to ENSO, not ice caps! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6885a3b76786cfdebe06a8967067e89b02b92f9f347efcbb0c8e94f40e097428.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58f646dd1897de92d9d8d60a8cf9436eceb05cd75693c662d91644eaf88af594.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a44bd70aeb634157e9b8ddb2ac3c6d5a8e973df232f2111071b9b949eacf8922.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2bb44c0ca3a23b7a0b65e696a8497bf66e4a103aae2ace9fda6f18d56280237c.jpg

          1. Church et al. 2006: ”For 1993 to 2001, all the data show large rates of sea-level rise over the western Pacific … The analysis clearly indicates that sea-level in this region is rising.”
            Duh!
            Measuring from the depths of an El Niño to the peaks of La Niña, in this region of the world – it must require a Climate Scientist to ignore the error in that!

            ”Our best estimate of relative sea-level rise at Funafuti, Tuvalu is 2 ± 1 mm yr− 1 over the period 1950 to 2001. The analysis clearly indicates that sea-level in this region is rising.”
            ”The impacts of sea-level rise on Tuvalu have also been a subject of considerable controversy (Eschenbach, 2004a,b; Hunter, 2004).”
            ”Most of the data presented here do not include [correction for the “inverse barometer] as we are most interested in relative sea level. ”
            ” Funafuti, Honiara, Pago Pago, Kanton Island and Christmas Island), sea level has large interannual variability (peak-to-peak amplitudes as large as 45 cm) associated with ENSO”
            Church, John A., and Neil J. White, and John R. Hunter 2006 “Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands.” Global and Planetary Change

            http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/Church_et_al_2006_published.pdf

  2. Hansen exemplifies charlatan .

    My Heartland talk was focused on working thru the classical physics to the distinctly undergraduate calculations showing his claim that Venus is “runaway greenhouse” were quantitatively absurd by an order of magnitude .

    Finally perhaps the “climate science” community is being shamed into a bit of the integrity required in other branches of applied physics .

    Interestingly , I’m glad I only speculated that the cause must be due to internal heating . A current discussion at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/22/why-we-live-on-earth-and-not-venus has opened my eyes to the cause being simply gravity .

    1. I have analyzed Armstrong’s science probably more than anyone on the planet. It is a joke. He writes down equations whose units don’t even balance.

      Of course, no one at the Heartland Conference noticed this, because Armstrong writes in an arcane programming language that no one can understand. And the Heartland people couldn’t care less if he’s right or not — they just needed to fill up their schedule.

      1. Yes, Cracenduch, your prostitution is less offensive than the prostitution Marc Morano is engaging in above!

        The fact that greenhouse gasses warm planets was proven over a century ago.

        Is it likely the scientists who proved it were engaging in a fraud that has somehow gone undetected all that time?

        “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

        climate.nasa.gov/evidence

        1. Oh…good! Precisely what is the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2? Be specific since you are so sure about your knowledge. You should be able to be specific….right?

            1. Uhhh…so we are discussing climate…right? So sensitivity refers to climate…right? Are you saying you don’t know what climate sensitivity refers to? Then why are you pretending to be some sort of expert?
              You citation indicates that the polar caps are loosing 159 Ggt…maybe much less. How many Ggt do the caps hold? If you know that, why are you acting like Chicken Little squawking scary nonsense?

    2. I know what you mean. I’m unsure what Hansen did to make his crony supporters turn on him like this, especially as the Paris Climate feeding frenzy approaches.

      Normally a scare story like this would be accepted without question and loudly proclaimed by all, like a Papal Encyclical. Even climate activist Chis Moody has dared to cast doubt.

      What mortal sin did Hansen commit?

  6. Hansen demonstrates that a PhD in astronomy says nothing about understanding engineering science.

    Engineering science proves CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

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

  7. Tonight, everyone should take a break and entertain themselves by watching Al Gore’s comedy, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    After you have burst your guts from uncontrollable laughter, relax with a ‘bourbon’ and watch that realistic documentary by Martin Durkin, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

  8. James Hansen is comparing the current situation to eemian period to demonstrate the risk of sea level increase , but 130’000 years ago , men didn’t drive cars … the CO2 rate was not so high (if we can believe the current values) so, it just proves the temperature or sea level is not dependent on CO2 rate or human activity !!!

  9. slowly but surely marc. common sense and truth will win out. maybe we will have global cooling or global warming but to make non-science statements that waste millions of dollars on silly predictions that are so far untrue is upsurd. think before you predict-i know what a silly thing to do, but do it anyway.

Leave a Reply

Support Climate Depot

Social Media

Facebook-f Youtube Twitter Instagram

Most Popular

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook Twitter Google-plus Pinterest

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.