To start off I'd like to address any potential skeptic responses to this thread that might go like this: "when it gets warmer they blame global
warming, when it gets colder they blame global warming, that's why they had to re-name it climate change (how convenient)."
Although the below information may seem a bit counter-intuitive, please note this result has actually been predicted by climate scientists for quite
One of the interesting ironies to all this - part of the reason we can see it happening due to global warming - is because it’s one of the only
spots in the world that hasn’t warmed over the last century:
The mechanism itself is a bit complicated (Al Gore actually explains it pretty well, so if you can suck it up for 3 min, the video above really is
worth watching). But basically melting freshwater - e.g. from Greenland, Arctic sea ice, etc - is disrupting the flow by diluting the dense heavy salt
water required to facilitate one end of this fancy geophysical conveyor belt. The science on this also has precedent, as it is considered a prime
candidate for what caused sudden localized cold periods, while the world otherwise warmed out of the last ice age: See
So what’s the doom forecast? Well the authors are pretty quick to point out this is not a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario, where a mini-ice
age is coming, oh noes run. I thought about framing it this way for all the inevitable stars and flags it would’ve attracted, but sorry to
disappoint I’d rather focus on more boring facts and stuff. What it could affect however is sea level rise on the east coast, since the gulf stream
is currently holding a fair bit of that back apparently.
That may sound surprising, but here’s how it works. We’re starting out from a situation in which sea level is “anomalously low” off the
U.S. east coast due to the motion of the Gulf Stream.
And before the Pavlovs start barking again - please note this concept also has some very recent precedent:
Sea levels from New York to Newfoundland jumped up about four inches in 2009 and 2010 because ocean circulation changed, a University of
Arizona-led team reports in today's issue of Nature Communications.
Also just to be clear, this situation for the east coast is on top of already projected sea level rise due to global warming. That’s another
famous meme that climate cranks like to pretend is a failed prediction – i.e. “Al Gore said we’d all be under water by now”. When in fact,
IPCC predictions have actually been criticized by other scientists for underestimating sea level:
Whatever happens to Gaea, she has faced it before. I deeply belive and feel the past trauma of this planet body we live on (asteroid strikes are
traumatic events for example).
Gaea is still here, beautiful as ever and still fillEd with life and longevity.
The humans, are more insignificant, and worry about everything their overly expansive minds, possibly can. With our tiny memories we don't comprehend
or understand the history events this planet has taken...
So present changes on Earth are going to be shocking and sometimes disturbing to the worrying mind.
I say relax, live and let Earth be. There is nothing we can do, or will learn, that she hasn't been through. Technology is just toys and useless wet
dreams of a minor species, to a celestial body.
Everything will be fine; Gaea, Sol, and humanity will remain constant with time..
Well that's a relief. All those scientists with their fancy data and booksmarts had me worried for a minute. When my grandkids ask why the world they
live in sucks so hard - I'll just point them to your reassuring post.
I do support the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax though - where any money they take at the gas pump is just reimbursed through reductions in our
income tax. We should be lowering taxes on the things we need more of (income) and raising them on the things we need less of (pollution).
I just watched James Hansen's latest (I think he did one or two before) Ted Talk and he talked about a neutral carbon pricing plan that made a lot of
sense to me.
Now the tragedy about climate change is that we can solve it with a simple, honest approach of a gradually rising carbon fee collected from
fossil fuel companies and distributed 100 percent electronically every month to all legal residents on a per capita basis, with the government not
keeping one dime. Most people would get more in the monthly dividend than they'd pay in increased prices. This fee and dividend would stimulate the
economy and innovations, creating millions of jobs. It is the principal requirement for moving us rapidly to a clean energy future.
Several top economists are coauthors on this proposition. Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection describes it thusly: "Transparent.
Market-based. Does not enlarge government. Leaves energy decisions to individual choices. Sounds like a conservative climate plan."
It will make Western Europe a little bit colder for a short while but eventually the extra heat in the oceans and the atmosphere will bring
temperatures back up. Meanwhile east coast USA will be warmer and wetter.
He tears apart cap & trade and suggests "fee and dividend" instead. Really kind of throws a wet blanket on the "all scientists are just making this
up for the money" conspiracy. I believe Hansen is actually a registered Republican as well (or at least used to be...)
Seconding what Kali wrote above. I think some of the consequences are still a fair bit uncertain though and it becomes a matter of perspective: many
people see uncertainty as a reason for apathy and therefore nothing to worry about, while others would rather not wait to find out.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.