But, the sea level in Manhattan is lower than it was in 1950. No Human footprint at all. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/
Hansen has lost touch with reality. He is continuing the same nonsense today. Some of his predictions my someday come true, but there is no one who can, at this point, reliably say when or why. He isn't like the person who predicts a stock market crash, but does not say when. That person is certain to be correct. But Hansen foolishly believed the early models, which are flawed beyond all usefulness, and Hansen put his faith in these flawed models. Consequently he foolishly mentioned when these climate disasters would be upon us. He's shown himself to be a very bad scientist. It is quite sad really, and not because he made serious mistakes, but because he refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong. He is looking at natural phenomena that seem to be consistent with his AGW hypothesis while being blind to many inconsistencies that are obvious to those not blinded by emotional involvement.
So, for 140 years the TREND has been for sea level rise at that station to exceed (the mean high water mark) by 2 mm/year? https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/est/est_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
and for the last 50 years the there has been no trend as Co2 levels have risen strongly according to your team. Hence, no human footprint.
you give him and the left too much credit. this is about govt control of our kid's futures. we are at risk for this: They won't be able to compete with the cronies without a carbon allowance. Their economic consumption will be controlled. Their lives will be controlled in short everything about their lives will be controlled by limits on their carbon footprints and terrorism controls on their movements speech and political beliefs. . The left is willing to lie to justify the means. They know that population is going to test our global supplies... this is their mechanism to control the people and keep themselves in charge. Join our team Piezoe and stop supporting big FED and big govt in other areas We could use your skills. Be a person who really believes in freedom and liberty.
This, below, is merely an elaboration on the my post above that Jem responded to. I wanted to be more specific regarding the main points where Hansen went wrong. Hansen has lost touch with reality. He is continuing the same nonsense today. Some of his predictions may someday come true, but there is no one who can, at this point, reliably say when or why. He isn't like the person who predicts a stock market crash, but does not say when. That person is certain to be correct. Hansen foolishly believed the early models, which are flawed beyond all usefulness, and Hansen put his faith in these flawed models. Consequently he foolishly mentioned when these climate disasters would be upon us. He's shown himself to be a very bad scientist. It is quite sad really, and not because he made serious mistakes, but because he refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong. He is looking at natural phenomena that seem to be consistent with his AGW hypothesis while being blind to many inconsistencies obvious to those not emotionally involved. Among the many guesses applied in early climate modeling, was that the half life of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere was very long, a century or more. Another guess was that there was a net positive feedback. Although the warming effect of a slight increase in the trace level of CO2 (100 molecules increase of CO2 per million molecules of dry air, as it were) might be experimentally undetectable without positive feedback, with positive feedback the effect would become exponentially greater and greater. All the early models incorporated positive feedback. What is so bizarre about this assumption is that many scientists are going to question the assumption of positive feedback, because even small amounts of positive feedback should lead, over time, to runaway temperature. All life on Earth would have long ago died had the feedback been positive for any significant past period. (It's ironic that this is self-evident to any electrical engineer, yet somehow it escaped climate scientist Hansen's thinking.) Some degree of negative feedback is a requirement for a corresponding degree of climate stability! The other guess also turned out to be drastically wrong. Hansen's assumption of very long CO2 half life has proven to be far off the mark. Sometime after Hansen formulated his AGW hypothesis the carbon-14 CO2 produce by the atmospheric bomb tests of the 1950s was used to estimate atmospheric CO2 half life. It is very short compared to the original Hansen assumptions.