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.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Peter Carroll on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Peter Carroll on AI Climate Math
- dm on AI Climate Math
- dm on AI Climate Math
- Bob G on AI Climate Math
- Russell Cook on AI Climate Math
- conrad ziefle on AI Climate Math
- Billyjack on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
I sometimes picture him in an office with walls made of tape, and an award associated with pork bellies on his desk.
“Obtuse! According to Websters, exceeding ninety degrees but less than one-hundred eighty degrees; lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility; rounded at the free end; dull.”
California’s Governor Brown just assured us NASA is still a leader in space science!
http://tinyurl.com/dxu6hof
Although:
a.) The USSR”s launch of Sputnik on 4 Oct 1957 threatened world domination.
.
.
.
j.) Kissinger secretly visited China 9-11 Jul 1971; Agreed to dismantle US space program.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
Secretary Kissinger never made any commitments of any kind to dismantle the U.S. space program. His historic visit to China had nothing to do with the U.S. Space Program.
Context is missing. Dr.Hansen’s assumption was based on a doubling of CO2 from levels at the time. That detail needs to be mentioned.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html
What a load of complete crap. There is no limit to how far people will lie in defense of Hansen.
The usual ‘explanation’ I’ve read is than Hansen was misquoted or the interview was made up and he never said anything crazy. On the other hand, every time he does an interview he seems to say something crazy anyway, so there is a prima facie case here for long term consistency on his part with regard to this subject. 😉
Correction for my above comment: The doubling of CO2 was from 280 PPM to 560 PPM.
Douibling CO2 in 20 years? Do you take everyone to be complete idiots?
yeah he does it seems:-0
same as Hansen et al do
then there the old line about ASS-U-ME
I would prefer to see the Tape across Hansens mouth!
and round his wrists so he cant murder more data.
Don and John Cook reading skills are low when they miss this easy to see line:
““If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?”
Hansen replies in a few seconds:
““The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water….”
This is why we laugh at you.
Don:
You are full of $hit! In 1988 and 1989 Hansen had his supper duper model to go by. That model showed less CO2 going into the atmosphere than the amount that did go into the atmosphere. There s no Friggin way he could have been talking about doubling in 20 years, based on his own model and what he displayed as his understanding at the time.
Go back to Cook with a suggested new name for the web site he runs: Simply Shitty Suppositions Suggesting Something Stupid! See he has been promoted from 2 Ss to six Ss.
I wonder if Hansen works full-time UNDER his desk.
If CO2 were to double, most of the doubling would have to be the result of natural CO2 outgassing, because the man-made CO2 contribution constitutes such a low percentage (roughly 4 percent) of the total. How many centuries would it take to double total CO2 through additions of miniscule mad-made contributions (while ignoring the natural contributions), assuming that CO2 levels increased nonstop?
By the way, scientists have no sure-fire method of determining which of those CO2 elements is natural and which is fossil-fuel induced. They like to talk about the different C13 (heavy)/C12 (light) isotopes, implying that the decreasing level of plant-based C13 in the atmosphere is the fault of people burning fuels. (Note: The ratio of heavy to light carbon (C13/C12) is roughly 1 to 90 in the atmosphere, but in plants there’s a 2 percent lower C13/C12 ratio.)
As Alexander Cockburn observes:
This is misleading, because less than a thousandth of the plant-based carbon on earth is bound up in fossil fuel. The rest of the huge remaining tonnages of plant-based carbon are diffused through the oceans, the forests, the grasslands and the soil.
Perhaps even more significant, cold ocean waters absorb lightweight C12 preferentially, resulting in lots of C13-deficient carbon in the oceans. This low-C13 carbon most certainly would have been released massively into the atmosphere over the course of the world’s warming trend since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended.
More here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/