Excellent news. Despite predictions (made by the world’s most brilliant and respected climatologist) that Manhattan should be drowning already, webcam images from this morning show that Times Square is still barely hanging on.
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.”
http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html
Sea level has been rising at 2.8 mm/year near Manhattan, which means that they only have another 520 years before Times Square goes under. People should probably start making plans now.
It is already two days before the day after tomorrow.
you’re repeating yourself. But you are so productive it is hard to blame you!
Given Manhattan’s imminent demise and the ready availability of webcams, I feel obligated to keep a close eye on the situation, and provide regular updates.
Who am I to question the wisdom of a man with so many peer-reviewed publications?
fair enough. Let me know when the rate exceeds 5mm/year! I have an apt in manhattan and I want to be able to at least get the art work out!
If a New Yorker in Manhattan invented a time machine and travelled 110,000 years into the past, he would be roughly 90 feet under water. From this experience he would learn two critical facts. Sea level can rise significantly without man made CO2 and Manhattan real estate was much cheaper then.
you are firing on all cylinders Sundance
Manhattan Is Still Above Water
Predictions happening or not is not relevant in global warming. Global warming is happening.
———–
sarcoff
According to what? The Ice in the 1920s and 1930s was pretty low, climate is not 30 years of satellite data.
That’s like going to a volcano, finding a 30 year old lava flow and ignoring all the others, and saying this is the biggest flow ever.
i said sarcoff. means it was sarcasm
S P:
According to the Holy Writ as handed down by the High Priests and their Neophytes.
Is there a cited reference for the quote on Manhattan? I would love to be able to incorporate it in to my daily rants about the CAGW scam.
Hi Galv
According to Washington Post reporter Bob Reiss (see Steve’s above link) his conversation with Hansen went as follows:-
“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 suppose he has got another 8 years to before his 30 years is up – any alarmists out there who want to bet a tenner on it coming true? Chris, Lazarus, Brendon?
It is interesting how some people will nitpick the smallest details, and yet blow off spectacular idiocy from the AGW gods.
Steve.
I have said repeatedly that if Hansen said this he was flat out wrong. No where in his scientific writings does he say write anything like this.
And how could one argue with a 2nd hand account from 12 or 13 years ago, with no response from Hansen.
@Paul, thanks for not including me in that horrid group of alarmists
Hansen has talked repeatedly about 3-5 and as much as 20 metres of sea level rise.
Are you accusing the journalist of lying?
Steve,
Am I ACCUSING the journalist of lying? No Steve, I actually… whoops sorry I was starting to get irritated at you, and this is actually quite funny. Must be Chris’ reactions being channeled through me.
I actually am taking his word and your posting of it at face value, not giving Hansen the opportunity to respond and saying it was stupid and wrong of him to say that.
If you want I can hold your hand and take you to the different posts where I have said that. I will even read it to you aloud over skype if that will be more comforting.
show me where Hansen has “talked about”3-5 meters of sea level rise in less than a century, or 20 meters in less than 2 And I will say he was stupid and wrong to do so. and I STILL won’t give him the opportunity to respond!
As Hansen gave thousands of interviews while our Government was censoring his statements to the press and he continues his prolific alarmist claims You might be able to even find it in his statement before Congress in 1988. Remember Hansen does not Joust with Jesters so you would probably not get a reply because anyone who doubts the emperor new clothes must be a jester.
Mike,
this should be fun. Show me a few dozen at a time of the thousands and I will be happy to denounce each one.
Ok, I found his 2008 testimony to congress. He says “In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. ” That is if there is little attempt to cut greenhouse emissions, and assuming that there is a large feedback on melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. Not an unreasonable extrapolation of what COULD happen.
Of course he doe not tell congress that he had been drinking when he talked to that stupid reporter in 1987-8, and was very sorry for the subsequent mass exodus from Manhattan that he caused.
TonyD:
I mentioned 1988 so lets start with this classic:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
I wanted to provide excerpts but it is a pdf.
Here is the NYT version of the testimony:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html
Here is a pdf of the actual testimony:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
I used to have other locations but they seem to have vanished.
There are only 219,ooo results on Google for James Hansen press releases:
http://www.google.com/search?q=James+Hansen+Press+releases&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
the NYT testimony, which does not quote him just states “thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century” that is significantly less than 3-5 meters/century, and consistent with his 1998 paper. I find no other claims in what you posted. Come on Mike, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
google Hansen and 3 meters. I don’t have the time to do a thorough examination of all the hits. I looked through a dozen and they all just mention numbers similar to what I have posted. Damn have the conspirators gotten to google too? Better make them screen shots so you can prove that the numbers were changed.
maybe this irresponsible comment is what you are looking for “It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem … An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway”
That’s an awfully long silence from Mike. I think we can conclude Tony is the winner of this dispute.
Climate change denialists always lose when they have to come up with evidence.