Sea level rise could lead to a cooler, stormier world

Says unpublished work from Jim Hansen? Should he even really be considered to be a scientist?

“A catastrophic rise in sea level before the end of the century could have a hitherto-unforeseen side effect. Melting icebergs might cool the seas around Greenland and Antarctica so much that the average surface temperature of the entire planet falls by a few degrees, according to unpublished work by climate scientist James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.” [New Scientist]

8 thoughts on “Sea level rise could lead to a cooler, stormier world”

  1. dbakerber is correct. The theory is that the addition of all the fresh cold water into the ocean will cause the fresh/salt water layers to flip. This shuts down the gulf stream, casting Europe back into a mini-ice age.
    Without reading (not about to) Hansen’s “theory,” it seems he’s putting the cart in front of the horse. It’s not the rising sea levels that would be causing the melt; rather it would be continuation of the warming cycle (he would call it AGW) that would cause additional accelerated melting, and thus rising sea level.
    However, I propose that Hansen is simply fishing for something to cover his collective butt, so that when it turns cooler again, he’s found a way out of his last 20 years of failed theories.

    Hansen: Well, I predicted this too, you see.

    Problem is – sea level rise is de-accelerating, and the next cooling cycle is to return long before the end of this century. I’d bet that we’re well into it, some 15-20 years from now.

  2. It is colder in Russia, Siberia, China and India this year and in the US – Alaska is much colder. I know where I live in San Diego – we have been having much colder weather than usual too – so probably the entire west coast of the US is cooler.

  3. Smokey, Mark Twain said it all in: “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court'” Nothing much has changed since its publication.

  4. Okay, hold on, a warming world is bad… but a cooling world is ALSO bad? So we should… what? Shut off Mankind’s CO2 output, so we can stop the warming, so we can stop the cooling? Ummmm… yeah. Anyone else ready to accept that logic runs off the backs of these folks like rain off of a duck?

    In answer to your question, Steve, I think we should refer to Dr. Hansen, et al. as “new scientists.”* Has a progressive, authoritative ring, don’t you think?

    We’re not merely “scientists,” we are new scientists, unencumbered by facts, logic or reality in our discovery of the Innate Truths of the Universe, and well beyond the ken of mere mortals (those lacking at least one can of alphabet soup behind their respective surnames, or failing that a mid- or upper-level post in some government or NGO). We exist to lead and protect you from your own inescapable ignorance. Grovel in your inadequacy, and bow to our pronouncements, lest ye face the Inquisition.

    * Barring trademark infrigement concerns, of course.

  5. So the New Scientist is publishing it because Hansen said it? Its not even new, that theory has been around for years. Can you say plagiarism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.