A couple of readers think that the author “misinterpreted” what Hansen is saying. ROFLMAO. “Tape on the windows” “Highway under water” “high winds” “same birds won’t be there.”
Maybe what Hansen meant was that he was going to put drapes on the windows because he doesn’t like seeing the water or hearing the highway on windy days since his Parakeet died.
In 1988, James (3-6 metres) Hansen forecast that Manhattan’s West Side Highway would be submerged 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.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
West Side Highway now
Since Hansen’s forecast was made, sea level in New York has risen less than 2 inches. The rate of sea level rise shows no correlation with atmospheric CO2.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
One bird that hasn’t yet left the area is Chicken Little. Hopefully he will fly the coop soon though.
Anyone that see a train carrying fuel to keep the lights on and his computer operating and links it to the trains carrying the victims of Genocide in Germany is apt to make any number of wild claims. From what I have read the guy was a wild man during the 1988 hearing and is equal to the people standing on the street corners with their sandwich boards proclaiming the end is near.
Any how! one of the Islands that makes up New York City is mostly human expansion through dredging and transporting dirt to the island to increase its size. Manhattan covered with water would not be a bad thing!
I’m not sure the second photo is actually what exists today. The photo caption from the link you provided says-
“Simulation of plan to create underground West Side Highway, along with riverfront park along the Hudson River, near the same location as the photo above. “
This is funny. Almost. Chris and/or Tony, I’d rather continue the conversation here. The caveats made come to light of the quote is that if a doubling of CO2 were to occur in 40 years, paraphrasing…..flooding, birds, police….etc.
Did Hansen seriously consider this a possibility? Nope, well sort of. Go to his 1988 paper. Same year he gave the original interview. 1988+40=2028. But, only in the most extreme case scenario A, he only considers a doubling of all GHG a possibility by that time. In B it only gets there about 2050 and A doesn’t.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/forcin6.gif
But then this isn’t the question. The biggest problem I have with these “scientists” is that they conduct their “science” by press release and interviews. They say the most outlandish things, have the sympathetic reporters write it. Scaring the hell out of people. When it doesn’t happen, they say, “I never said that, show me a peer-reviewed study that says that!” The most recent case in point is the “Snow is a thing of the past.” Skeptics howled at the assertion. But nary a word from any alarmist climatologist. They simply let it stand. Well, the last 2 years showed this thought to be total bullshit. Now, the climatologists say, well this is to be expected…..blather, blather. And were it not for a few obscure papers and references in the IPCC, they would have gotten away, once again, with saying, “We never said that!…….”
This is just the latest example. I have no doubt that for 10 years both Hansen and Reiss have known about the commotion of the Salon interview. For ten years they’ve remained quiet. Now, Reiss wants to say the interview was an informal interview and he didn’t have access to his notes. More bullshit. Read the interview. Notice the detail and the length of the interview. That’s a lot of stuff stated in terms of certitude. Are the birdies and police car prognostications also contingent upon 40yrs/CO2 doubling?
In Hansen’s rambling blog, its interesting to note how he termed Michaels’ assumed confusion, he states “So give Michaels a pass on this one –assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss’ book.” <—–wtf? The book isn't the source. The author is. The same guy that gave the interview. And, in the end Hansen, himself, is the source. But Hansen says the book is the source? Reality isn't determined by what spin we want. Reiss and Hansen played both sides. They knew of the Salon interview……..especially Reiss and said nothing. FOR 10 YEARS!
Off for some pool matches.
Peace.
I believe that Hansen is both saying that the water would be over, and not be over the road, therefor bringing the forecast in line with all other AGW predictions.
Is any of this really any different than a warming world causing a reduction in snow, while simultaneously causing massive amounts of snow at the same time and in the same places? Or CO2 causes droughts while flooding the world? Remember it has all been predicted by GCMs. The only models that are actually dependable are the ones that predict government funded climatologists and warmists will state that whatever is observed was exactly what is predicted in a warming world. And whatever they say doesn’t matter because they are trying to save the world and they should get credit for good intentions.
You would think like other “experts” that Hansen’s reputation would be diminished once his bad track record is exposed.
Being completely wrong is a resume enhancer to the left.
Steve, about Hansen and his groupie trolls, if you really want to bake their noodle (yup, watched the Matrix again) keep an eye for an animated GIF showing the Manhattan outline centuries ago versus today.
They have been adding size to the island especially on the west side for a very long time. Lots was added on the southern west tip when the WTC was built using earth from the excavation. Manhattan is bigger today. Rising sea levels couldn’t erase the man-made expansion, let alone the ‘natural’ perimeter.