TL;DR: This blog post gives a review of the many good scientific criticisms of the Hansen paper, and also highlights the poor responses of Hansen et al. Basic

TL;DR: This blog post gives a review of the many good scientific criticisms of the Hansen paper, and also highlights the poor responses of Hansen et al. Basically, the paper starts with the assumption of exponentially increasing melting from Greenland and Antarctica, modelled simply as Ce^(at) liters of fresh water added to the ocean per year. The weird thing IMO is that this (liquid) fresh water is injected at -18 C (weird model), so they've effectively removed the latent heat but not the sensible heat, for some reason; the latent heat is 10x the sensible heat here, so why neglect the big one and include the small one? They conclude that dramatic sea rise occurs (duh). Perhaps the most important takeaway from the critique in this blog post: """ [The paper predicts that] basically many areas, in Europe in particular, enter a period at least as cold if not colder than the little ice age. The associated rainfall changes are equally as impressive. This would lead to large-scale challenges around provision of food, services etc. for global society and large-scale disruption of ecosystems. It is also entirely opposite to the direction of climate change that policy makers are currently planning for on this timescale. """ So, if the paper's conclusions are correct (and the blog post author and many others apparently think it's not), we're basically doing everything wrong in preparing for the consequences of climate change.