Sea Level

"World's Most Famous Climate Scientist" Predicts 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise in Just 50 Years

James Hansen and his colleagues promote, uh, publish an alarming new study



"Peer review doesn't necessarily say that a paper is right," once observed Martin Blume, editor-in-chief of the American Physical Society. "It just says that it's worth publishing." So what does it say when a study is published without even the fig leaf of peer review? It must be REALLY worth publishing, right?

A huge media hullabaloo has broken out over a new study that will be made available later this week at the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion where it will undergo "public peer review." But before that happens, the world's most famous climate scientist, James Hansen, is evidently eager to provoke alarming headlines by forwarding his conclusions to various media outlets.

A very alarmed Slate reporter describes the findings of the so-far unpublished and un-peer-reviewed study:

In what may prove to be a turning point for political action on climate change, a breathtaking new study casts extreme doubt about the near-term stability of global sea levels.

The study—written by James Hansen, NASA's former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years. The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, brings new importance to a feedback loop in the ocean near Antarctica that results in cooler freshwater from melting glaciers forcing warmer, saltier water underneath the ice sheets, speeding up the melting rate. Hansen, who is known for being alarmist and also right, acknowledges that his study implies change far beyond previous consensus estimates. In a conference call with reporters, he said he hoped the new findings would be "substantially more persuasive than anything previously published." I certainly find them to be.

To come to their findings, the authors used a mixture of paleoclimate records, computer models, and observations of current rates of sea level rise, but "the real world is moving somewhat faster than the model," Hansen says.

Hansen's study does not attempt to predict the precise timing of the feedback loop, only that it is "likely" to occur this century. The implications are mindboggling: In the study's likely scenario, New York City—and every other coastal city on the planet—may only have a few more decades of habitability left. That dire prediction, in Hansen's view, requires "emergency cooperation among nations."

The alarm has been sounded and peer review—public or otherwise—be damned.

One prediction of which I am absolutely certain: Expect lots more alarming reports on climate change to emerge as we get closer to the Paris U.N. Climate Change Conference this December at which a universal climate agreement is supposed to be concluded. 

NEXT: Could We Kill Off HIV Without Ever Curing It?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So if sea levels have already been rising faster than the models predicted (which models??), why aren’t the Maldives already underwater?

    1. Because they rise in some places and fall in other. Because not all continents are the same height due to mountains and other things.

      -actual climateer argument

    2. Because British are holding them under occupation, despite Argentina’s claim.



      I posted below, but I’ll bump it here: He made the same prediction 27 years ago.

      Still, not even close to coming true.

      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 40 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.”

    4. That’s because warming hasn’t caused any accelerated rise. The delta has been linear for ~80 years.

  2. And I guess we will just go ahead and ignore the volcanism going on under the Antarctic.

    1. I fail to see what Mr Spock has to do with this.

    2. So, that is interesting. Is this recent activity? Or an ongoing activity recently discovered? And, for those of us who are science-challenged, in what way does this blow up Hansen’s argument?

      (and, yes, these are sincere questions not sarc or disagreements)

      1. Just like there is a tide in water levels, there is a tide in land levels also. The gravity of the moon and planets affects both.

        I am not sure about volcanism in any given location, but plate tectonics is a never ending process, that is, the crust of the earth is constantly moving driven by the movement of the molten interior. Just to get an idea of scale, if you were to draw a cutaway of the entire earth showing it’s layers on an entire 8×10 sheet of paper with a .5 mm mechanical pencil the single line you draw representing the crust would actually be thicker in comparison to your drawing than the actual crust is to the earth. The crust is really just a thin layer of scum floating around on the plastic and liquid interior. That should give you an idea of how much movement, vertical and horizontal, is going on.

        1. . The crust is really just a thin layer

          All crust should be a thin layer. All of it. And that’s why deep dish isn’t pizza.

          1. Goddammit Sloopy.

          2. We don’t eat cardboard!

          3. Thread winner.

        2. Also, the vast majority of the earth’s water is chemically locked up in the crust. I don’t remember the exact number, but it is somewhere in the 80% area.

          Melting the rocks of the crust when it is pushed deep into the hot interior releases huge amounts of water which then flows up and forms geysers and hot springs. The floor of the ocean, where the crust is thinnest, has huge numbers of these. Also, as new rocks are formed large amounts of water become chemically bound up.

          In other words, the amount of liquid water on the earth is not fixed.

          I am trying to give you an idea of what a complicated situation we are dealing with. When you hear ‘scientists’ make absolute pronouncements about these things, particularly when coupled with calls for political action, you can safely dismiss them as bullshit.

          1. Also, the vast majority of the earth’s water is chemically locked up in the crust. I don’t remember the exact number, but it is somewhere in the 80% area.

            Does that mean 20% is surface water or does that take into account water vapor? Serious question.

            1. Man, it has been a long time since I looked at any of that stuff and I am sure there is lots of new info on it I am unaware of, so take this with a grain of salt.

              The other ~20 is all other water. Liquid in the ocean, on land, and ground water and vapor dissolved in the atmosphere. Mind you I pulled those numbers out of my ass. I just remember being shocked at how high the percentage was. I think it was higher than that but I was being safe by saying 80.

            2. Water vapor is minuscule.

          2. Thanks.

          3. We have a multivariable equation here where we are not sure we have accointed for all the variable,uch less know what their values are, yet the ecoerts can make solid predictions.

  3. The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, brings new importance to a feedback loop in the ocean

    Feedback loops that have never been proven but are just assumed because they are necessary for the theory.

    1. It’s like dark matter, John. All the models point to something responsible for most of the mass in the universe, and the models have been very finely tuned. You wouldn’t deny fundamental physics, would you? Why are you denying climate change?

      1. Next thing you know I will be denying the existence of alternative universes just because there is no observational evidence they exist. I am weird like that.

        1. It’s strings all the way down.

        2. Welcome to atheism.

          1. Nope. Sorry. Different issue. But nice of you to understand finally that being an “atheist” doesn’t mean your opinions are not faith based.

        3. David Deutsch (a libertarian!) would disagree, (if I understand him correctly) as he argues that the double-slit experiment gives empirical evidence for the many-worlds interpretation.

          1. double-slit experiment

            Go on…

              1. I’d fuck her…twice.

          2. I disagree. If he wants to believe that, fine. But I fail to see how saying “it was caused by another universe” is any different than saying it was done by the hand of God.

            I find his argument not very compelling.

      2. The effects of dark matter have been observed in the real world.

        1. Just want to point out the big bang is bullshit…

          and observations of dark matter might be bullshit also:


          1. To clarify what i am saying this study does not prove the big bang is bullshit.

            The big bang being bullshit is self evident. “Nothing becoming everything including the very laws that govern everything” does not even approach occam’s razor let alone pass it.

            What the study does is call into question the observations of dark matter.

            1. Sorry, there is incontrovertible proof of black holes, especially the supermassive ones at the hearts of galaxies.

              Dark matter is a bullshit fudge factor, IMO. Dark energy, on the other hand may not be.

              1. No there is evidence of massive stars and radiation that Hawking predicts would be cast out of a black hole. We have yet to actually observe a black hole. Only gravitational anomalies that indicate something massive, as well as the Hawking Radiation.

                What this paper suggests is that the Hawking Radiation is actually cast out in the death throws of a star, and that this process sheds so much mass that it is impossible for the star to collapse into a black hole. This is an alternative way of explaining the “fingerprints” we have attributed to black holes.

      3. But dark matter is an attempt to explain actual observations

        1. By pretending something we haven’t seen exists. How is that different than pretending God did it?

          1. You don’t “see” gravity, but you can feel its effects. Same with dark matter. We don’t see it, but we see it affecting regular matter, and in fact simulations of the universe (like Bolshoi) actually require it. Dark matter could be just some strange new particle, a flaw in the theory of gravity, or gravity leaking in from other universes. I like the latter.

          2. It is all in the ether John. All in the Ether

            *For those who don’t know, the ether was a substance that was invented to occupy the vacuum of space to explain how light waves could travel through a vacuum. Waves have to have a medium to wave and since there is nothing to wave in a vacuum, there has to be ether there, right?

            1. I prefer nitrous to ether… it gives me a headache.

          3. We have seen it. We just don’t know exactly what it is made of. There are many ways to observe things. Pretty much everything we know about astrophysics depends on indirect observations of the type that led people to deduce the existence of dark matter. just remember, it is the name of an observed phenomenon.

            It may well be that there is some new theory of gravity to explain it that doesn’t require a special new particle, but most physicists seem to think that that is very unlikely.

            The reason it is different from saying “god did it” is that it is a theory, based on observations and our current understanding of how gravity works. While we know that GR is incomplete, it is very successful in predicting almost everything we observe. It’s not faith because it is contingent on our current observations and theories, which could conceivably change.

            1. “We have seen it.”


              Not so much:


              “In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

              *Note my bold

          4. You don’t have to see something to see its effects.

            Can you see air? Radio signals? Gravity?

            Disbelieving in dark matter simply because it doesn’t show up in pictures is silly.

  4. You should have tagged it ManBearPig.

    1. That would be super serial.

      1. Why has Cartoon Network not made such a serial? Tonight ManBearPig travels to arctic to continue his war against the evil Fossil Fuel Man.

        1. They have disney and pixar for that

        2. Because they already did Captain Planet, and a ManBearPig series just couldn’t compete with that.

          1. ManBearPig could compete with anything.

          2. Captain Planet was only a thing because TBS put it on right after their most popular show. A continuous loop of that video with the monkey pissing in his own mouth for half an hour could do better.

      2. And I don’t do twitter but if I did, I really thing #ManBearPig needs to be a thing.

  5. The alarm has been sounded and peer review – public or otherwise – be damned.

    Like anything beyond narrative mattered at any point in this field of discussion.

    1. And, it’s also clear that the point of the narrative is to enforce top-down coercion.

      I started off as a definitive skeptic but Bailey’s columns have moved me into the undecided camp. But, people like Hansen with their alarmist + the state must assume control narrative are not going to get my support or persuade me to move to anything like their viewpoint.

  6. “To come to their findings, the authors used a mixture of paleoclimate records, computer models, and observations of current rates of sea level rise,,,,”

    What about sun spot activity? Did they use sun spot activity?

    1. My good friend is a solar physicist. Apparently the sun spot model that predicted a big and extended decrease is already failing to match observations.

      1. Wait, hasn’t it only been out for a month? Don’t these things only have an accuracy on a +/- year scale at best? Or is it failing at back casting?

        1. I was surprised as well, but apparently these types of models are able (or need to be able) to explain processes on very short time scales.

          I suspect the reason is that the model is really tied into what the Solar magnetic field is doing, and the sunspot predictions are a consequence of that. The Sun is highly dynamic and there is tons of data being collected on it on very shot timescales, so you can test the magnetic field theories pretty quickly.

          1. Huh, interesting. At least with such a short timescale it will be easier to find out why the current model diverges from observation.

      2. Because of the Koch brothers.

      3. Have they figured out what’s wrong with the observations?

        1. I laughed. Good one.

  7. I’m sure, like his ‘predictions’ of an uninhabitable NYC, this one will have qualifiers in the fine print such that he’ll be able to duck any responsibility.

    1. “Hansen’s study does not attempt to predict the precise timing of the feedback loop, only that it is “likely” to occur this century.”

      1. It could be ten feet in ten years… or fifty feet in twenty years. It could even, somehow, be a hundred feet of molten rock scouring the earth of all life in as little as fifty years.

    2. NYC is already uninhabitable.

      1. Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.

        1. We’ll see if that changes based on this can’t-miss report. Because if anyone actually believes this is the case we’re sure to see a mass exodus from New York in the very near future. How can all these superprogressives both believe this and stay put? Surely they’ll be moving any day now.

          1. 50 years is more than enough time to institute an environmental dictatorship.


    So there Ron, with your fancy-schmancy new book.

  9. Aren’t we supposed to be past the “point of no return” by now? If so, can we just stop with the alarmism?

    1. Yes, and if you ask what will the solutions proposed do, they never keep us above 2 deg C warming which they claim means we all die.

      They won’t push for what they think is the only solution – banning all carbon fuels.

      Those idiots need to go first.

    2. Yes. The antarctic ice sheet is already collapsing. It is too late.

      Whatever happened to that guy anyway? We haven’t heard any more about that. I wonder what that means?

  10. I was always under the impression that scientific papers were not published until they had been peer reviewed. If this hasn’t been published or reviewed, why should we care?

    1. More and more people are putting papers out there before they have been peer reviewed and officially published in a journal. I generally think that’s a good thing, and I do it. The number of reviewers on a paper is typically 1 – 3 (at least in my field), but when you put a paper on a pre-print server more people can scrutinize it and provide feedback that might improve the quality of the paper. Think of it as adding a crowd-sourced element to the peer review process.

      But it does require that others be careful to note which papers have been rigorously reviewed and which haven’t.

      1. The media is good at that.

      2. And since journalists are fanatics and make up for it by being completely ignorant, I doubt they will be too careful about that, so long as the paper confirms their narrative.

        1. Yes, that is definitely part of the risk.

          I also think there is a difference between putting a paper out there to stand on its own merits while you get feedback and actively promoting it via a big press conference. That was one of the things that the BICEP2 team got flack for.

          1. Because they flexed muscles and strong-armed the publishing process?

            1. No, more that they engaged in that kind of self-promotion when there were still very serious questions about whether they properly accounted for their systematic effects. And it turns out they did not, and that the signal they saw was not real.

              Cosmology is an especially competitive field and BICEP wanted to get out ahead of competing experiments, basically because they wanted a Nobel prize. They did the best they could with what was available to them, but they were well aware that what was available to them was incomplete, and that if they waited a year they could have done a better analysis with more cross checks.

              I don’t want to imply that they were doing something nefarious, necessarily. I think they truly believed they had enough data, trusted their analysis, and were confident in publishing. But there is no doubt they rushed it and took a risk in doing so.

              1. So what you’re suggesting is that BICEP2 was staffed with poseurs who could talk shit on the internet but didn’t even lift, bro.

                1. I only now got the joke.

                  1. (Not to say I don’t appreciate the explanation.)

              2. Cosmology is an especially competitive field

                It can take months to your beauty school degree, and state regulators can be assholes!

          2. Yes, that is definitely part of the risk.

            Sorta. Peer review only kinda filters the garbage and does nothing to prevent media fanaticism.

            Higher education shot itself in the foot education-wise by setting up the peer-review walled garden. It’s going to be absurd as it comes down. But better down than up, IMO.

      3. Peer review doesn’t seem to matter with Climate Science anyway if you look at the recent NOAA paper on the revised SST that allowed them to get rid of the pause or if you look at the 98% agree with AGW paper.

      4. Scientist putting out a paper for public peer review is one thing. Sending journalist your conclusions when no one will be able to see your methodologies for at least another two weeks is completely different.
        They aren’t doing crowd peer review they are purposefully preventing others from checking if their conclusions are supported by their paper before its fifteen minutes of fame is up. Its a manipulation of the media cycle tactic, and their conclusions should be treated with the same respect as the soap box doomsday homeless guys until the paper has been both released and given time to be examined for flaws.

        1. They are trying to embed this in the public consciousness now, and if there are problems discovered with the model later, no one will hear about it. This happens all the time on both sides. People put out “evidence” and people with similar confirmation bias take it and run with it. Later, people will “rebut” it but at that time you are getting so deep into the weeds that laymen on both sides of the debate can’t really understand that and settle on the answer they want anyways.

          “It’s been proven in that paper”
          “No, this guy invalidated it.”
          “No look at this response. He rejects the rebuttal”
          “That’s because he is a pundit”
          “Well that other guy is a shill”

      5. I believe open-access peer review journals like PLOS ONE and Sage Open are a good compromise.

  11. I always wonder what THE WORLDS MOST FAMOUS CLIMATE SCIENTISTS have to say about cities like Mahabalipuram or Heracleion, both of which used to be above water cities but for some reason they became submerged after rising seas consumed their coastlines.

    Could it be that global warming/climate change was happening thousand of years ago without any influence from human activity? Or do they argue that we were burning too much dung back then too?

    1. That’s obviously and indisputably occurred. I mean, it wasn’t all that long ago, geologically speaking, that people walked across a major land mass where the Bering Straits are today.

      1. Yes, but we can all agree that Port Royal sunk into the sea as a result of God’s wrath unleashed.

        1. “His Most Catholic Majesty agrees!”

      2. I don’t understand why rising seas today are a result of human activity but rising seas a thousand years ago was a result of natural processes.

        Tenure perhaps?

        1. It’s not impossible or even implausible that human activity could be affecting the climate. However, even if we are, do we compare to other events in the past in scope or scale? Seems unlikely–a string of volcanic eruptions, for instance, indisputably has a greater effect than the entire human history of pollution.

          What might be true is that human activity is significant enough to add on to a existing warming trend or, perhaps, slightly delay a cooling trend. That could matter in the short term.

          In the long term, unless we go ape shit and nuke the planet or otherwise up our influence on the environment, we’re going along for the ride. And make no mistake, Earth’s climate history isn’t stable, and we’re very danged lucky to exist in a prolonged warm period. This planet has spent quite a number of years largely covered in ice. I wonder if previous intelligent species didn’t make it just because it was too friggin’ cold?

          1. It’s not impossible or even implausible that human activity could be affecting the climate.

            I would say it is very likely that we are affecting the climate, but as you said the question is to what degree, and more importantly how much of a degree in comparison to natural processes?

            The part that scares me WAYYYYY more than Global Warming is this prediction that we may be headed towards another Maunder Minimum type situation with the recent lack of solar activity. You think that the last few winters were bad, wait until the sun quiets down for a few decades. Invest in snowplows!

            1. Glaciation is far, far more dangerous than any likely warming.

          2. That is a pretty good summation.

            We definitely do affect the climate, but how much is in dispute. I contend that our effect is pretty small compared to the other forces at work.

            Side note: The Indians used to burn off nearly the entire central part of NA to destroy forests and create plains. They did this, of course, for the buffalo. Obviously the climate will be quite different over a large plain than over large forested areas.

            I suspect that the climate is somewhat milder now that we have allowed most of the forest to return. Unfortunately it means I can’t hunt buffalo in Louisiana.

    2. “Could it be that global warming/climate change was happening thousand of years ago without any influence from human activity? ”

      Yes. It is called the end of the latest ice age.

      1. We’re still in the latest ice age, just in an interglacial period. And we’re over 15,000 years since the last once, which means we’re due (read that periods like these usually last 15-20,000 years).

  12. The Carbon Clowns have a ‘major’ doomsday model-study-free toy inside dropping every week now.

    Paris and Peak Stupid approacheth.

  13. Skynet is going to fix everything

  14. “The real world is moving somewhat faster than the model,” Hansen says.

    Yup, that’s the problem, the models didn’t predict enough warming.

    1. He’s right, though. We are indeed speeding right along to November 30, 2015.

  15. Won’t someone please help that poor woman? She obviously doesn’t want to get her torch wet.

  16. “Hansen, who is known for being alarmist and also right, acknowledges that his study implies change far beyond previous consensus estimates.”

    I’m confused. I thought all scientists that did not agree with the “consensus” were quacks to be ridiculed and exiled. I guess you are allowed to disagree with the consensus when your predictions are even more alarming then the consensus?

  17. This will no doubt be reported breathlessly, and will, I think, be greeted with indifference from the general public. We ignorant masses have already entertained countless apocalyptic predictions that didn’t turn out to be true.

    I do love it when doomsday peddlers attach an actual year to their predictions, though, instead of just “some day.”

    1. Yeah but this doomsday peddler will likely be dead in 50 years.

  18. So this will render NYC uninhabitable? I bet DiBlasio achieves that first.

    Clearly we aren’t paying the proper amount of attention to these characters so they have to escalate the rhetoric and increase the magnitude of the coming catastrophe.

  19. but “the real world is moving somewhat faster than the model

    When are we going to finally acknowledge that these models are complete horeshit on the grounds that we, as a species, do not yet fully understand weather/climate and its variables? You cannot accurately model something you do not fully understand.

  20. Catastrophic climate change as a result of AGW is just so much fantasy. But climate change, including substantial warming or cooling in a relatively short time, is a historical reality, one that long predates human existence, let alone industrial society.

    Just the couple of hundred thousand years that Homo sapiens has existed has included some periods with major changes in climate. Again, without any possible way to attribute that to AGW. We’re due, in fact, for another glaciation in the next few millennia (that’s within that period–it could begin happening sooner rather than later).

    In a nutshell, what we need to be thinking about to the extent that humans are capable of truly long-term planning, is the reality that the Earth will have substantial shifts in climate. Whether we cause those changes or not, that’s what we should be ready for. Adaptation, not huddling in the corner hoping that Gaia won’t beat us with a stick.

  21. “But before that happens, the world’s most famous climate scientist, James Hansen, is evidently eager to provoke alarming headlines by forwarding his conclusions to various media outlets.”

    Typo alert: You misspelled infamous.

    “A very alarmed Slate reporter describes the findings of the so-far unpublished and un-peer-reviewed study:

    “In what may prove to be a turning point for political action on climate change, ”

    Slate? Not much of a mask there, is there?

    A conclusion has been reached which requires political action. Bazillions of dollars are handed out from the government to ‘scientists’ to fund studies to find evidence justifying the conclusion and thus the political action. Anyone presenting arguments or evidence to the contrary is hounded out of business. In Europe now it may even be a crime to do so. This is not science. It is a political scam.

    This is why I discount almost anything the alarmists have to say. They have been caught lying. That makes them liars. If James Hanson told me the sky is blue then I am going to look at it to make sure. If he tells me the earth is warming I don’t want to see his data. I want to see the fucking thermometer and then calibrate it against my own.

    1. In what may prove to be a turning point for political action on climate change,

      What possible reason is there to believe that? Hansen and his ilk have been making doomsday predictions for going on 30 years now. I fail to see what is any different about this one.

      The AGW people have lost. They have done and will continue to do a lot of damage but they are never going to achieve their objectives. The only solution they offered for this “problem’ is politically and practically impossible to achieve. So the world is slowly just tuning them out. There will be no turning point. Instead just a gradual fading away as doomsday predictions become less and less effective political weapons and leftists move on to some other justification for their moribund ideology.

  22. To come to their findings, the authors used a mixture of paleoclimate records, computer models, and observations of current rates of sea level rise, but “the real world is moving somewhat faster than the model,” Hansen says.

    Did they measure the skulls of the scientists involved? Or read the bumps on their own heads to determine the prophesy? It would be about as reliable. I mean, if you can’t make a “model” that mirrors the observable data then how can we expect you to predict a fucking thing?

  23. the world’s most famous climate scientist, James Hansen

    Michael Mann has a sad. Now he’ll have to delay his trial against Mark Steyn for another month. See what you did, Reason?

  24. So, who is more corrupt? The NOAA or the NCAA.

    1. NAACP?

  25. I love how the word used ‘most famous.’ As if how popular or well known he is in some way increases his credibility. The fact that he’s been linked to scandals and such doesn’t matter. He’s fucking famous.

    Because being fucking famous is what science is about.

    The breathless predictions about how this will be some wake-up call is rubbish for reasons pointed out above. They make new doomsday predictions every fucking day. You know what might scare people into voting how these fucks want? If any of their predictions ever actually came true.

  26. Whenever I see “James Hanson” I read “Jim Henson.”

    1. It’s not easy being Green.

    2. I think of Chris Hansen, and that time we were sitting in the kitchen, and he was asking me why I brought wine coolers.

  27. “We’re gonna need a bigger boat…” – Zombie Roy Scheider

    1. Roy Scheider is dead?!?!? At least we still have Lou Reed.

      1. I hate to tell you but…

  28. Just like the “breakthrough” climate model introduced by NOAA and repeated by their partners in GISS that uses data manipulation and poor measuring techniques to quash the lack of warming seen in the satellite and balloon record, this will be repeated constantly by the media.

    I do wonder how Hansen gets 10 feet in 50 years when the current rate of sea level rise is 1/30th of that. Almost all of which is accounted by the recent warming in the northern hemisphere arctic region (mostly Greenland). Actually, if the entirety of Greenland’s glacier melts it would only be slightly more than an 8ft rise.

    What is never reported either, the Antarctic is most likely gaining ice mass overall. The only news you may read about Antarctica is the melting western shelf, which is almost entirely caused by active volcanoes right beneath it. A 2008 satellite measurement of the antarctic ice mass, saw the eastern shelf gaining mass at a greater rate than the western shelf was losing it, but you will never read that in the news.

  29. There may be more alarming notices on the way, but that has nothing to do with Paris, but everything to do with reality. Surface temperatures (where we reside) show that 4pf the first 6 months of 2015 are the warmest on record. And the first 6 months are in fact the warmest on record. With an accelerating El Ni?o, it’s fairly certain we will shatter the previous record hottest year. So much for any pause, which has been cited- incorrectly- often on these pages.…..inevitable

    1. Here is a good graph of global land and sea temperatures by year, with the first 6 months of 2015 plotted. It’s the star, off the chart. Some pause.…..lTemps.jpg

    2. Shut up Joe. You only worry about this because being two feet tall you will be one of the first people to drown if Hansen is somehow right,

      1. Either that or he has overdosed on watching “Waterworld”

      2. joe never met a breathless prediction of ecological apocalypse, pulled straight from the ass, that he didn’t want to take home and gay marry.

        How are those thousands of predictions of certain doom coming, joe? Has one of them come true yet?

    3. I knew it wouldn’t be long before Jack the socialist asshole showed up with more bullshit.
      Hey Jack! What about that ‘fracking causes earthquake’ study that was going to end oil drilling?

    4. So who is actually having a hot summer? My neck of the woods (Texas) has had one of the coolest and wettest summers since I was born, California has just returned to historical norms, and I haven’t heard anything terrible from the social networks about other parts of the country. That just leaves the other six continents, and once again, I’ve heard nothing about any of them having unusually hot summers (this grapevine is much less reliable than the in-country one). So, who has actually had unusually hot weather?

      1. Parts of Europe, including Spain, England, and Now France, as well as Central Africa as well as Australia.

      2. Seattle, record temperatures.

  30. By the way, as far as waiting for peer review, had you cited studies in the past that had not been peer reviewed? Yeah, you have.…..called-off

    1. That’s OK. It will all be under water soon. Like in Ponyo.

    2. Stick your socialism up your ass.

  31. Hansen is the “most famous” climate scientist in the same way that Bozo is the most famous clown.

    1. I thought this guy was the most famous clown:

    2. Nonsense. Hansen is famous for being an incompetent Climate Scientist. He has both failed to do real science AND failed to conceal the fact.

      Bozo was actually a fairly successful clown.

      Mind you, I loathe both of them.

  32. No one believes this report, especially the New York progressive media elite. If this planet is going to see a MINIMUM ten foot rise in sea levels WITHIN the next fifty years, there’s nothing realistic that can be done by humanity. If the entire globe enacted crash programs tomorrow, realistically all it would do would reduce the rise. Which means New York real estate prices will being crashing shortly.

  33. Huh. 10 feet in 40 years, eh?

    Funny how he made the same prediction 27 years ago and it still isn’t true.

  34. So New Orleans is below sea level and it is “uninhabitable” and no one lives there too, right???

    It’s a joke how you always read that sea levels will rise and coastal cities will be flooded and no one can live there.

    No….they will build dams and levies around NYC and elsewhere. They will have years or decades to build them and won’t even take that long. ALL of the coastal cities will be fine.

    Lying mfers.

    And Climate Change is a disaster for humanity and the planet in so many ways, but this is not one of them.

  35. James Hansen and his colleagues promote, uh, publish an alarming new studyPredicts 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise in Just 50 Years

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.