TWO-PILOT GLIDER TEAM SETS ALTITUDE RECORD In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming. We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). “although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.” After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at about it. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events.
In The Coming Storm the question includes the conditions of doubled CO2 and 40 years, while the article which is quoted by skeptics does not mention doubled CO2, and involves only 20 years. The book The Coming Storm and the article are different. You are not worth listening to if you are going to lie.įrom the skeptical science piece linked above: He could have chosen a lower ECS, but he is a catastrophist so he picked a high value and got it wrong.
The Charney report already established an ECS range of 1.5 to 6. If he used an ECS of 4, he was also wrong on that. He proposed three paths, and emissions have followed the worst one while temperatures have followed the best one. He based that prediction on his temperature models that have also failed, and in his assumptions of sea level rise that have also failed. It is difficult to think that he could have been any wronger. Hansen predicted 30 years ago that in 40 years some streets of New York would be under water, and trees and birds would be different. Based on this year’s hurricanes they can talk about hurricanes trends when there wasn’t any major hurricane since 2005. The bias is so strong that people doing the discrimination don’t notice. There is active discrimination against politically incorrect trend changes like the one in Arctic sea ice. This is a trend change that despite being so short can be supported because it is politically correct. They have followed the best case scenario.Įmissions changed trend about 3 years ago. Emissions have followed until recently the worst case scenario, while climate effects haven’t. Predicting is hard, specially about the future. Nobody can predict future emissions accurately 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.”Įxamining Hansen’s prediction about the West Side Highway
#Bad piggies online 2018 sea87 windows
And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway will be under water. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. 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. “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. The important part was “with doubled CO2.” CO2 is only up about 40%, so there’s a long way to go. You might not know this, but time doesn’t trap heat.
The question was, “”When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.” No, little one the problem lies with you. “Hansen hasn’t been right about a thing in his life.”
0 kommentar(er)
