Saturday, November 28, 2009
More Informational Videos
The first is on the missing Hotspot:
The second is again by Dr. David Evans on Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming:
The third is by Dr. David Archibald explaining the link between Global Warming & Sunspots:
Finally, the fourth is a preview of a six part series on the mysteries of clouds and their relationship with Climate Change with Professor Henrick Svensmark:
This last one is an excellent companion to the recent paper by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Yong-Sang Choi, on the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. A paper that shows that satellite-observed radiation loss by the Earth increased dramatically with warming, this was in stark contrast to all of the computerised climate models they examined which did just the opposite. The models said the atmosphere was trapping more radiation with warming rather than releasing more.
The implication of their results was clear: most if not all climate models that predict global warming are far too sensitive, and thus produce far too much warming and associated climate change in response to humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Global Warming Swindle Movie
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Climate Research Unit Email Scandal
For those that haven't been following it so far, try these sites to gain some back ground for yourself:
Watts Up With That
Professor Roger Pielke Snr:
Professor Roger Pielke Jr.
Article 3 (very interesting article containing links to the various emails)
These are only a small section of material that is doing the rounds of the blogosphere at the moment on this but between them the cover most of the unfolding issues to date and contain links to other sites I haven't listed here.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Dr. Richard Lindzen Discusses Climate Change
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Yet More Political Support For Alarmism
On November 6th 2009 the Prime Minister of Australia - Kevin Rudd (seen above as the press would have us see him) made the claim that "sceptics are too dangerous to ignore and are holding the world to ransom." By reading this blog according to him you are a dangerous person who is "invariably ...driven by vested interests", and "are quite literally holding the world to ransom" and you are "illogical" and a "coward" and "simply do not care."
You are also a person who is "Provoking fear campaigns in every country they can; blocking or delaying domestic legislation in every country they can; with the objective of slowing and if possible destroying the momentum towards a global deal on climate change." Yet in his next breath he stated: "Australia was one of the hottest and driest countries on earth and would suffer more and higher temperatures if no action was taken." Of course it is the sceptics who are provoking the fear campaigns isn't it?
Marc Morano of Climate Depot posted a rebuttal of the Prime Minister's wild claims the same day. As can be seen here:
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spewed out a rhetorical barrage on climate skeptics worldwide. See: Australian PM warns skeptics 'are too 'dangerous to ignore' and are 'holding the world to ransom' – November 6, 2009. Also see: here and here for more coverage of Rudd's speech.
Climate Depot has undertaken a point by point rebuttal to Rudd's claims. The full text of Rudd's speech is available here.
Rudd Claim: Skeptics are “powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.”
Climate Depot Response: Yes, skepticism, the foundation of science, is and always has been strong enough to derail lavishly funded and politically motivated science based on wildly speculative climate model “predictions” and distortions of past climate records. A “scientifically meaningless” domestic carbon trading or international treaties will not impact global climate in any detectable ways, but will have huge human impacts.
Rudd Claim: Skeptics “constitute a powerful global force for inaction.”
Climate Depot Response: On the contrary, skeptics constitute a powerful force for scientific truth and morality based vibrant energy expansion to the developing world's poor. To the extent that we can prevent “scientifically meaningless” climate treaties and regulations from passing, then yes, we plead guilty to promoting “inaction.” As former Thatcher science advisor Lord Christopher Monckton has said: "Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
Rudd Claim: “Climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom.”
Climate Depot Response: Reality check Mr. Rudd. Science, economics and reality are holding man-made global warming fear promoters like Rudd to ransom. It must be frustrating Mr. Rudd to have once believed you could hoodwink the people of your nation and the world to believe in climate fears and your purely symbolic “solutions.” Polling data from the U.S., the UK, Canada and your Australia show the public growing more skeptical. (See: Polls: 'More Americans believe in haunted houses than man-made global warming' - 37% vs. 36% ) The only “ransom” involved in this debate is the financial demands placed on countries to redistribute money based on collapsing climate fears. See: Reparations: Africa seeks climate change cash...demands billions in compensation for 'damage caused by global warming' & Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference & 'Controlling climate? More like controlling humans': Beware of 'unprecedented transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global governance'
Rudd Claim: Our “children's fate – and our grandchildren's fate – will lie entirely with [skeptics' opposition].
Climate Depot Response: Nice maudlin touch, Mr. Rudd. The fact is children are probably the only ones left that you and your climate fear promoting friends can convince that a climate catastrophe is just around the corner and you and your colleagues are their saviors. You are in luck, Mr. Rudd. Climate Depot takes full responsibility for the fate of your children and grandchildren from any future man-made climate catastrophe. Climate Depot can and will gladly take public responsibility for the children and future grandchildren of our planet for “doing nothing” about climate. So there, problem solved.
Rudd Claim: “The legion of climate change skeptics are active across the world...”
Climate Depot Response: Yes, you are very correct on this point Mr. Rudd. Scientists dissenting from silly and baseless man-made global warming fears are literally standing up around the world – from New Zealand to Canada to Brazil to Mexico to Sweden to South Africa to Japan to Portugal and everywhere in between. See: 2009 U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims and see: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'
The shock to you Mr. Rudd is that even the mainstream media is not abandoning man-made climate fears. See: Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears
Rudd Claim: “The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change skeptics simply do not care.
Climate Depot Response: What clock is “ticking?” The one the UN warned of a ten year tipping point in 1989? See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' Began in 1989
In addition, NASA's James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore started their comical “tipping point” clocks a few years ago, while Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009! Even more absurd, the UN chief further shortened the "tipping point," warning of 'incalculable' suffering without climate deal in December 2009! The question looms: Would you buy a used car from a salesman using such low-brow tactics, let alone, buy into man-made climate fear claims? Mr. Rudd, you must believe the public to be nothing more than a bunch of rubes if you want them to believe your climate tripe.
Rudd Claim: “The vested interests at work are simply too great.”
Climate Depot Response: What “vested interests?” You are not claiming that skeptics have some sort of funding that is in any way comparable to the tens of billions spent promoting climate fears, are you? See: Gore's path to become the first 'Carbon Billionaire' and see: The Global Warming Science Machine: $79 Billion and Counting
Rudd Claim: Skeptics “are a political attempt to subvert what is now a long standing scientific consensus...”
Climate Depot Response: “Long standing scientific consensus?” Surely you jest. Man-made global warming fears did not come in widespread vogue until the late 1980's. In case you missed it, many of today's warmers were promoting global cooling as late as 1970's. See: Climate Depot's Factsheet on 1970s Coming 'Ice Age' Claims: 'Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media' The man-made global warming hypothesis is now failing in the scientific community. See: UK Astrophysicist: 'The notion that CO2 warms world has come to a dead end': They are trying to 'prop up a 'scientific theory' that has run out of so called facts' and see: UN IPCC Scientist Declares 'A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism' and see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!
South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!” UK scientist Dr. David Bellamy once believed man-made climate fears, but has since reversed his views and become a skeptic. “The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science, Bellamy said in November 2008.
The news is so grim for man-made climate fear activists that they are already looking for the next environmental scare to hype! See: AGW RIP? Is It Time for Next Eco-Scare Already? Gore's producer Laure David touts plastic crisis: 'Plastic waste is in some ways more alarming for us humans than global warming' - July 31, 2009 & UK Green Party: 'There exists a more serious crisis than the 'CO2 crisis': the oxygen levels are dropping and the human activity has decreased them by 1/3 or ½'
Rudd Claim: The consensus is supported by “4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world.”
Climate Depot Response: Why not make up higher numbers? Why not just claim 50,000 UN scientists support the “consensus?” What silliness.
Reality Check: 2009 U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists has pushed the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
See: Team of Scientists' Open Letter To U.S. Senators: 'Claim of consensus is fake'
Plus UN scientists speak out – against the climate fear claims! New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
Rudd Claim: Skeptic “attempt to twist the agreed science in the direction of a predetermined political agenda to kill climate change action.”
Climate Depot Response: Very interesting choice of words – “agreed science” The “science” of man-made global warming fears is literally the best science politics can manufacture. See New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics! The problem, Mr. Rudd, is that your view of “agreed science” is collapsing in real world data, peer-reviewed studies and a growing number of dissenting scientists. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'
Rudd Claim: “It reminds me of the efforts of the smoking lobby decades ago as they tried for years to politically subvert by so-called scientific means that there was any link between smoking and lung cancer.”
Climate Depot Response: Great analogy Mr. Rudd! Climate Depot agrees, the smoking analogy is very apt. But alas, it is the promoters of man-made climate fears that are mimicking the tobacco lobbyists actions. See: Climate Fear Promoters mimic tobacco industry tactics Excerpt: This [current climate fear promoting] strategy provides a positive “pro-science” public stance that masks the ignominious activity of institutional and professional persecution of numerous scientists whose honest work casts legitimate doubt upon the more alarmist projections of the supposed “consensus.” Like the tobacco industry, this campaign has: “Manufactured uncertainty and fear by stridently proclaiming certainty and consensus based on dubious and uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate.”
Rudd Claim: “What absolute political cowardice” [on the part of skeptics].
Climate Depot Response: Cowardice? Scientists have literally risked their careers to go against today's politically motivated “consensus.” On the contrary, skeptics are courageous to wage a battle against the “agree science” you take as a matter of faith. See: EPA further muzzles global warming skeptic Dr. Alan Carlin - August 25, 2009 & Other climate fear promoters are using threats and intimidation to silence the climate debate. See: 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' - June 3, 2009
Rudd Claim: “What an absolute failure of logic [by skeptics].”
Climate Depot Response: Logic? Let's review Mr. Rudd. You are lamenting the fact that skeptics are opposed to a “scientifically meaningless” climate “solution” process that could condemn the estimated 1.6 billion energy impoverished people in the developing world to a continued nasty brutish and short existence based on collapsing scientific claims. See: India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity' Skeptics promote a vibrant energy policy that promotes development and expands energy around the globe. The only people “pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change” are the UN and the U.S. Congress. Why else would the Kyoto Protocol not even have a measurable impact on global temps (assuming they were correct on the science ) and it was fully enacted?
It is the U.S. Congress and the “scientifically meaningless” Waxman-Markey bill that even Obama's EPA admits will not have a measurable impact on global Co2 levels, let alone any measurable or detectable impact on global temperatures. The man-made climate fear promoters have been “pitching a do-nothing approach to climate change...” since the movement's launch in 1988 by consistently promoting purely symbolic "solutions" to global warming. Mr. Rudd, you claim that carbon trading and UN treaties are some sort of an "insurance" policy against global warming. But a simple question to ask is: Would you purchase fire insurance on your home that had a huge up front premium for virtually no payout if you home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress and the UN has a deal for you with their cap-and-trade and climate legislation.
If we did actually face a man-made climate catastrophe and the "solutions" of the UN and Congress were our only hope, we would all be DOOMED!
Rudd Claim: Skeptics “are too dangerous to be ignored”
Climate Depot Response: Fully agree with you Mr. Rudd. Scientific truth, reality based economics are always “dangerous” to climate charlatans peddling their wares of a coming climate catastrophe. It used to be those who stood on street corners warning of the end times were thought of as nutcases, now those same views are held by world leaders. It is sad to see “climate astrology” replace actual science. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now': 'Shouldn't Chu be touting these scary predictions of the year 2100 on a boardwalk with a full deck of Tarot Cards? Sadly Mr. Rudd, it is you and your fellow climate alarm promoters that are touting faith based science.
Rudd Claim: “The danger skeptics pose is this – by collapsing political momentum towards national and global action on climate change, they collapse global political will to act at all. They are the stick that gets stuck in the wheel, that despite its size may yet bring the train to a complete stop.”
Climate Depot Response: We plead guilty Mr. Rudd! Our goal is simple: To bring the train to a complete stop. You did figure us out correctly on that point.
Rudd Claim: “Skeptics are well resourced and well represented by political conservatives in many, many countries.”
Climate Depot Response: Wrong again, Mr. Rudd. Politically left scientists and environmental activists are now dissenting from climate fears in growing numbers. See: Politically Left Scientists Now Rejecting Climate Fears – Jan. 2009
Rudd Claim: “This brigade of do-nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.”
Climate Depot Response: Yes, scientific truth, economic reality and political realism are always “dangerous” to politically and ideologically motivated climate fear promoters. As for “suffering” from failure to “act”, please explain how UN treaties and carbon trading “save the planet?” Even the Washington Post understands climate reality. See: Wash. Post's Moment of Clarity: 'Carbon emissions will not be reduced by international bureaucrats sitting in a room and signing a piece of paper' – July 14, 2009
Rudd Claim: “Their aim is not to convince every person on earth of the follies of acting on climate change. Their aim is to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible.”
Climate Depot Response: Actually Mr. Rudd, the more messrs Gore, Kerry, Brown, Obama, and yourself speak, the more the public grows skeptical. So you and your colleagues have been a huge help in helping to spread skepticism and expand opposition to silly and economically destructive global climate treaties.
Rudd Claim: “If Copenhagen does not deliver the outcome we so urgently need, no individual climate change skeptic will be responsible, but each of them will have played their part.”
Climate Depot Response: Goody! Let us hope Copenhagen does not deliver! For the sake of the planet and its inhabitants. Skeptics will proudly celebrate the collapse of Copenhagen and do so knowing our children and grandchildren will be better off. Yes, our children and grandchildren will be much better off without a UN body that uses used-car salesman tactics dictating meaningless climate “action.”
Rudd Claim: “In this debate the climate change skeptics have erected an intellectual house of cards based on one simple premise: that the cost of not acting is nothing.”
Climate Depot Response: Actually, you have your logic reversed Mr. Rudd. The cost of doing “something” as defined by the U.S. Congress and the UN achieves “nothing” in results. It is all economic pain for no climate gain. At best under UN climate treaties, the world accomplishes “nothing” as far as climate goes, but we risk a neo-colonialism of Western nations imposing regulations on impoverished developing nations that can only be called immoral. See: Flashback 2002: U.S. Environmentalist Laments Introduction of Electricity in Africa; Flashback 2002: Jerry Brown says 'it's not viable' for poverty stricken developing world to emulate prosperity of U.S.' Ugandan Activist: 'African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans told we shouldn't develop' because wealthy Western nations are 'worried about global warming': Excerpt: 'Telling Africans they can't have electricity and economic development – is immoral'; Flashback 2003: S. African Activist: Poor countries should just say: 'Go to hell' to Wealthy Western Nations: 'If you don't want us to fill in our wetlands, then you bomb your big cities like Washington, a third of Holland and Rotterdam and so on, and restore them to being swamps'; Flashback 2002: UN Earth Summit's Failure Called 'Good Thing' For Poor Nations: Excerpt: The first world became rich without the IMFs and World Banks, and the less of them that are around, the more likely the Third World is to do the same."; It is a moral issue! – 'People cannot cook'...Chad's Global Warming Inspired Ban on Charcoal leads to 'Desperate' Families! - January 16, 2009
Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store's “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports; India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity'
Report: 'Green, UN, rich nation and African elites impose deadly anti-development colonialism' - June 8, 2009; Greenpeace Leader: There is urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in U.S...'Lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model' - August 20, 2009; Flashback 2002: Average American Lifestyle Called "Total Bull---t" by Environmentalist - Excerpt: 'If anyone in a developing country looks to the U.S. and wants a lifestyle like the average American--it's total bull---t!'; Flashback 2000: Actor Chevy Chase Says 'Socialism Works' -- 'Cuba might prove that'; Black clergymen protest Robert Redford 'link his environmentalism to racism'; Obama Advisor Warren Buffett 'repeats criticism of cap and trade, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax'
Rudd Claim: “Skeptics claim that the cost of not acting is nothing.”
Climate Depot Response: Wrong again. Skeptics claim that RESULT of “acting” is nothing in terms of climate results.
Rudd Claim: “Their skepticism is in fact radical in its riskiness and recklessness. By deliberately undermining and eroding the capacity to achieve both domestic and international action on climate change the skeptics are attempting to force the world to take the single most reckless bet in our long history.”
Climate Depot Response: Mr. Rudd, you repeat yourself ad nauseum. There is no “reckless” bet. The way forward is already happening. Improving technologies, expanding energy and growing economies in the developing world will improve the global environment more than any UN treaty or domestic carbon trading ever conceivably could.
Rudd Claim: “Skeptics are doing so in the total absence of any genuine body of evidence.”
Climate Depot Response: Oh please Mr. Rudd. Here is but a sampling of the latest scientific studies and real world data that are challenging your politically motivated science views. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated'
Rudd Claim: “The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government...their prescription for inaction has all the legitimacy of a roulette wheel.”
Climate Depot Response: The casino analogy is apt. People are being told that we must enact a new UN climate treaty or face certain doom. The problem is the casino is run by the UN and it is loaded with corruption. (See: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 )The UN casino pit bosses are offering a sucker bet. Put all your money on a “climate treaty” or “carbon trading” and you will be allowed to live. Don't do it and you will face bodily harm and loss of property. It's an offer you can't refuse. See: La Cosa Climate: Commerce Sec. Warns: Americans Need 'To Pay' Or Face Mother Nature's Wrath -- Pay up or face 'floods, droughts and rising sea levels': An offer you can't refuse -- Pay up or world faces a 'catastrophe'
Congressional Weather-Makers: 'Climate Astrologer' Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass climate bill
What UN casino is not telling patrons is that the “climate treaty” bet is nothing more than pure symbolism that could harm the poorest of residents. People are wising up, gambling with the UN is not a winning bet.
Rudd Claim: “You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science...You've got to know when to fold 'em – and for the skeptics, that time has come.
Climate Depot Response: Aha, yes, the time to fold has arrived. Here is a very small sampling of the current reality you want to deny Mr. Rudd: See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated' and 'Dramatic acceleration of developments against the claims of a so-called 'consensus.'
UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool'
'Sun Sleeps': Danish Scientist declares 'global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning...enjoy global warming while it lasts'
Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming' : 'Warming had a natural origin...CO2 is 'not guilty'
At long last Mr. Rudd, have you no shame?
So are you those things that the Prime Minister claimed you were? Or are you simply a person who has chosen to view the debate froma different perspective and having done so now has some legitimate doubts as to the validity of the claims made by the politicians and their alarmist collective.
For another analysis of Prime Minister Rudd's speech by Professor Roger Pielke Jr. can be seen here.
Also for an analysis of the accuracy of the figure of 4000 scientists used in the speech by Prime Minister Rudd by Lawrence Solomon can be found here.
It should also be noted that it is rumoured that Prime Minister Rudd has a long held ambition to become the Secretary General of the United Nations. What a lovely feather in his cap this would be if he was able to deliver on Climate Change for them now.
Perhaps, like the press, we should allow the Prime Minister the last word in this debate:
Friday, November 6, 2009
Dr. James Hansen's Failed Prediction
A Little Known 20 Year Old Climate Change Prediction By Dr. James Hansen - That Failed Badly
The news today from the Pew Institute tells us that many Americans are backing away from the predictions of catastrophic climate change. This may be because many predictions simply haven’t come true.
Most, if not all, WUWT readers know Dr. James Hansen of GISS. He’s credited with jump starting the debate in 1988 with his now famous “sweaty” testimony before Congress in June 1988. See more about the stagecraft of that event here.
...He likely doesn’t remember this one interview he gave to a book author approximately 20 years ago, but fortunately that author recounted the interview on Salon.com. What is most interesting about this particular Hansen interview is that he dispenses with the usual models and graphs, and makes predictions about what will happen in 20 years to New York City, right in his own neighborhood. Sea level figures prominently.
Here’s the interview.
In a 2001 interview with author Rob Reiss about his upcoming book “Stormy Weather” Salon.com contributor Suzy Hansen (no apparent relation to Jim Hansen) asks some questions about his long path of research for the book. One of the questions centered around an interview of Dr. James Hansen by Reiss around 1988-1989. Red emphasis mine.
Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.
Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”
Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”
When did he say this will happen?
Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.
Does he still believe these things?
Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.
I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, here, just in case it should be deleted. So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980’s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.
The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC, has a view of the Hudson River.
Here’s a Google Earth street level view of 2880 Broadway:
First let’s establish the location in traditional down looking map style view at
put Dr. Hansen’s line of sight on the image:
Here is a close in view, from further east on 112th street, just behind the GISS building looking northwest to the Hudson river. Google’s 3D buildings feature is used to recreate the buildings:
Here’s what the view from Dr. Hansen’s window at GISS looks like:
And finally, here is the view from the Hudson, looking back to the GISS building:
In the recounting of the interview by Rob Reiss, Hansen makes several claims about trees, birds, police cars, and crime. I can’t comment on those as I have no data. What I can comment on is this prediction by Dr. Hansen:
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”
As you can clearly see in the Google Earth images, the West Side Highway remains dry and open. Sea level (at which the Hudson River at that point becomes) is not encroaching on the highway. Note the date on the Google Earth timeline toolbar in the upper left. The aerial imagery was taken approximately 20 years later, on May 12th, 2008.
So much for local climate change predictions by the leading global authority on climate change.
Even if we give Dr. Hansen the benefit of 30 years, I’ll point out that satellite measured rate of change of global sea level has slowed significantly in the last few years, and is not likely to rise enough to meet Dr. Hansen’s prediction even 30 years out. See this story.
In fact using the University of Colorado interactive sea level plotting tool, we can see virtually no trend in the last 20 years:
You can reproduce it here at sealevel.colorado.edu
I wonder what Dr. Hansen thinks when he looks out that window today?