~ Doug Hoffman
“Our algorithm is working as designed”
- Recent NCDC press release
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”
- Albert Einstein
"In the latest reconstruction of the global surface temperature throughout the Holocene (hereafter M13), the most striking feature is a pronounced cooling trend of ～0.5 °C following the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) (～10–6 ka) toward the late Holocene, with the Neoglacial cooling culminating in the Little Ice Age (LIA; ～1,800 common era) (Fig. 1, blue). Numerous previous reconstructions have shown cooling trends in the Holocene, but most of these studies attribute the cooling trend to regional and/or seasonal climate changes (2–6). The distinct feature of the M13 reconstruction is that it arguably infers the cooling trend in the global mean and annual mean temperature. This inferred global annual cooling in the Holocene is puzzling: With no direct net contribution from the orbital insolation, the global annual mean radiative forcing in the Holocene should be dominated by the retreating ice sheets and rising atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), with both favoring a globally averaged warming. Therefore, how can the global annual temperature exhibit a cooling trend in response to global warming forcing? This inconsistency between the reconstructed cooling and the inferred warming forced by GHGs and ice sheet poses the so-called Holocene temperature conundrum and will be the subject of this study. Here, we study the global annual temperature trend in the Holocene and its physical mechanism by comparing the temperature reconstruction with three different transient climate model simulations. Our analysis shows a robust warming trend in current climate models, opposite from the cooling in the M13 reconstruction. This model-data discrepancy suggests potentially significant biases in both the reconstructions and current climate models, and calls for a major reexamination of global climate evolution in the Holocene."
The problem is that Hansen was probably trying to 'alarm' people into action. Not always the best strategy, but Hansen is a scientists and his expertise isn't in management of policy or engaging communities (especially on such a manner as drastic as the community change required for addressing climate change).
I am not sure if his comments were based on any models, or if they were they would have be the high high/low percentile of predictions. That is, he may have focused on an extreme scenario to make his point. Perhaps he was frustrated with the inaction ... I don't know. Perhaps he sees it as his 'job' to inform people of the worse case scenario, perhaps his words have been taken out of context, perhaps he didn't know any better (don't believe sea level changes are his area of expertise)?
Could be many reasons why he made this statement.
I'll give the alarmists that he meant 40 years and with a doubling of CO2. Either way, he will be proven wrong as alarmists always are.
Is that what he said?
He was asked, "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-...
His comment was about what happens when carbon dioxide doubles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-...
This shows that Hansen actually predicted 40 years and with double the CO2 (not sure what doubled actually means and why throw something impossible in your prediction anyway?).
Hansen is a believer and a wacko leftist. I can't think of a better explanation for him making ridiculous predictions.
Who cares. No one believed this alarmist and he was obviously way off on his dates.
The alarmist denies He said that now . Maybe He meant 20008
He is less a scientist, and more a propagandist.
Well, historically proven liars, tend to, well, lie a lot, it's in their nature.
No one respects his opinion.
Jimmy Hansen stated that by 2008: “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….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Why was he so far off the mark? Are computer models that bad?
Because he is a liberal twit.
Because he didn't say it (which is why there is no link in the question backing this myth).
