Category Archives: Sea Level

SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CO2


I usually summarize topics gleaned from postings. But this one is written with a lot of interconnections from one of his 29 bullet points to another bullet point that segmenting it dilutes his reasoning.  The source of this information  is a posting, 11 March 2020,  by Dr. Roger Higgs on the Electroverse web site.

29 BULLET POINTS PROVING THE SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CO2: BY A GEOLOGIST, FOR A CHANGE (DR ROGER HIGGS)

MARCH 11, 2020

Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11, 6th April 2019, amended 7th March 2020 on ResearchGate (LINK HERE).

We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.

Here are the 29 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and at most 1 geologist in the next report (due 2022; see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 150 years (since thermometer records began, ~1850), yet Earth is 30 million (sic) times older, 4.5 billion years! Geologists know that Earth has warmed and cooled throughout this time. Climate change is perfectly normal.

2) The IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in man-made- or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. IPCC authors, mostly government and university researchers, are biased by strong vested interests in AGW (publications; continuance of salaries; research grants). Similarly, universities have sacrificed their impartiality by hosting institutes mandated to confirm and act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The claimed ‘97% consensus among scientists’ that AGW exists is a deception. It refers in fact to polls of recent publications by ‘climate scientists’, i.e. atmospheric scientists, lacking deep-time perspective (Bullet 1), whose numbers opportunistically exploded in the post-1990 AGW boom, creating a strong incentive for bias (Bullet 2).

4) No educated person ‘denies’ global warming: it has been measured (Bullet 11). ‘Global-warming denier’ and ‘Climate-change skeptic’ are deceitful terms for man-made-global-warming doubters and deniers (most of the world’s scientists?).

5) CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’. But, as CO2 rises, its theoretical heat-trapping ability sharply declines, already 67% ‘used up’ at 100 parts per million (ppm) CO2, 84% at 300 ppm (NB 275 ppm when industrial CO2 output began; Bullet 8), 87% at 400 ppm (today 415 ppm) and >99% at 1000 ppm. Moreover, Climate Sensitivity (CS), the warming due to doubling CO2, is guesswork. IPCC ‘estimates’ CS from climate models (circular reasoning) as probably between 1.5 and 4.5 (300% contrast!), but models are defective (Bullet 6). In reality CS might be very near zero, perhaps explaining why up to 7,000 ppm in Phanerozoic time (Bullet 7) did not cause ‘runaway’ warming.

6) Climate models (by climate scientists; Bullet 3) are so full of assumptions as to be useless or highly misleading, e.g. forecast 1995-2015 warming turned out to be 2 to 3 times too high. Bullet 19 gives another drastic failure. Even Wiki (2019) admits: “Each model simulation has a different guess at processes that scientist don’t understand sufficiently well”. Models dismiss the sun’s fluctuations and omit the multi-decade delay between these and resulting warming or cooling. This time-lag, due to ocean thermal inertia (mixing-time), is grossly underestimated by IPCC (Bullets 21, 22).

Continue reading

Computer Predicted Global Temperature Show Man-Made Global Warming To Be A Lie


Frankly, I don’t get it. The actual data is ignored by dedicated warmers.  In the period that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the warmer’s authority on all things related to climate science, the forecasted temperatures have greatly exceeded the actual recorded temperatures.  All one must do is look at the following chart:

 

The forecast temperatures, generated by a banks of computers, are well above the measured temperatures.  The satellite and balloon actual measurements confirm one onther, And the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is higher than the warmer computer operators expected so the gap between real and computer forecast temperatures should even be greater.  If this gap had only existed for just several years, one might say that we should wait a while because It might possibly start to get smaller. But that is not been the case. As the years go by it has grown larger.  The chart shows the satellite and balloon temperatures  as rising in this chart. That was caused by the El Nino. Those temperatures are now trending down.  Overall, the measured global temperature as shown is rising, but this is  due to natural forces with only a minimal amount due to CO2.     

Temperature is the driver for their forecasts of all the catastrophic thing they imagine will happen.   Melting glaciers, disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, sea level rise of many meters, droughts, floods, tornados, hurricanes, loss of species, massive migrations, diseases moving in a polar direction etc. are all a function of the very high projected global temperatures. 

They keep teasing you by telling you that there is “tipping point” that if reached will result in an uncontrollable ramp-up of temperature that will have catastrophic results.  Can we really believe this as their prediction batting average is not very good? 

I used to be a frequent contributor of “letters to the Editor”.  Most of my letters asked why the media continued to publish these outlandish forecasts that did not come true. That they should review the history of what they have published and that they would see the prediction’s failure rate was very high. Aren’t the media supposed to be skeptics?  Not necessarily about just global warming but everything?  They are not fulfilling their obligation to their subscribers.  And that is reflected, obviously, by the decline of subscribers and their withering loss of credibility which has them now rated near the bottom of the polled lists.

To summarize, if the actual temperature is not skyrocketing, the warmer catastrophes are not going to happen. All their bloviating is just that, blovating.  They must keep you worried so they can continue to get money from you and the government to keep them alive.

 

PS

Some of you may have noticed that my postings have almost been non-existent for many months.  I have had some health setbacks that have kept my posting near zero.  Trigeminal neuralgia is a nasty thing to have. I am on my second bout with it. About 14 years ago, I had my first encounter.  As Trigeminal sometimes does, it went into remission after about a year.  But now it is back. Medication allows me to have mostly pain free days. Having compared notes with my niece who has had Trigeminal longer than I have and much worse, we both find that moving your neck in the ways that one does when typing and reading, really aggravates this damned condition.  I think I am now in condition to continue my blogging- I hope.

cbdakota

Most Revealing Chart Part 2–Failed Warmer Predictions


 

The previous posting shows that the warmer’s forecast “average global temperature” is way off from the actual measurements.  These alarmists use that erroneous forecast as the basis for their pronouncement of future global catastrophes that will come about if we don’t join their quest to remove CO2 emissions and switch to renewable energy.   

The alarmist’s forecasts of catastrophes get maximum coverage in the media.  It is obvious that the media never checks to see if the previous forecast have proven correct. And the following will demonstrate that the media never ever question an alarmist prediction and never ever goes back to check out the previous predictions.

There all kinds of alarmist’s forecasts, some of which I covered in an earlier posting titled” CAGW PREDICTIONS—ZOMBIE AND OTHER”. Almost all of them are embarrassingly wrong.   I encourage you to click on the link and have some good laughs.

The awful forecasts that follow are from scientists, science organizations and many from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)— a UN organization. This assembly of failure was posted by Javier on The Blog WattsUpWithThat with an intro by Andy May.  Andy takes a little liberty with Javier’s posting by adding on a section that highlights obvious predictions that the alarmists should have made.

An outline of the failed predictions are as follows:

·        Warming rate predictions

·        Temperature predictions

·        Winter predictions

·        Snow predictions

·        Precipitation predictions

·        Extreme weather predictions

·        Wildfire predictions

·        Rotation of the Earth predictions

·        Arctic sea predictions

·        Polar bear predictions

·        Glacier predictions

·        Sea level predictions

·        Sinking nation predictions

·        Climate refugee predictions

·        Climate change predictions

–and Andy May’s failure to predict list—

·        Greener planet

·        Increase in forest biomass

·        Carbon sinks increase

·        Slowdown in warming

 

All the above list can be read by clicking on the WattsUpWithThat posting

“Some Failed Climate Prediction”.

 

cbdakota

Most Revealing Chart Part 1 Computer Forecasts versus Actual Temperature Measurements.


The graph below is probably the most revealing of all the graphs used when discussing man-made global warming.  John Christy presented it to a US Congressional hearing in 2017.  The graph’s X axis shows years and the Y axis is global atmospheric temperature  anomalys in  degrees Centigrade.   (“Anomaly” degrees, is the measurement of the change in temperature rather that the actual temperature.  The actual temperature is somewhere  around 15C.  The exact temperature can be contentious.  So the anomaly is usually charted.)

The red line is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate model runs.  The man-made global warming theory doesn’t have one model.   They had 102 models all churning out forecasts of the future global temperature. All with different assumptions of what will the future look like.  All of them show rising temperature based  primarily the  amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The forecast spread is all over the place based upon a number of other assumed forces.  Christy averaged the forecasts and that is  source of the red line.

Then Christy added the atmospheric  temperatures that were  MEASURED,  by satellites and weather balloons.

So, stating the obvious, we have actual measured temperatures versus forecast temperatures. One can note that over the time, the separation between actual and forecast has gotten greater and appears that trend will continue

 

 

These forecast high temperatures are what propels the catastrophic man-made global forecasts of sky high sea levels, melting glaciers, mass migrations,  mass extinction of species, terrifying  severe weather, and deadly heat.  The media revels in these forecast disasters and gives them top billing.  But why would you believe this will be the Earth’s future?   Surely if everyone knew this or have just learned it, why would they be persuaded to foist these irrational conclusions upon us?

You may be thinking that only one model would be necessary if they really could forecast average global temperatures.

cbdakota


 

President Trump Dumps Alarmist Panel-Draining The Swamp Continues


The climate alarmists tell the public that the sea level is going rise 7 to 15 feet by the end of this century.  The crops are going to fail.  There will be mass extinctions.  The extent of the horrors awaiting us in the future are almost unlimited.  The basis for all these catastrophes is the predicted rise in temperature based upon the computer models they have programed. For example, the sea level rise is predicated on a rise of temperature in the range of 4 to 7° C  or greater by the year 2100.  Without the big rise in global temperature, all these supposed disasters will not come to pass.

These computers have been forecasting temperature for many years.  How are they doing?  If a company had their operations run by these computers, they would be out of business by now.  Look at some of the recent revelations. The New American posted “Top Climate Alarmist: Computer Models Wrong, Skeptics Right on “Pause”.  From that posting we get this:

“Count on the Fake News media to ignore a huge admission by a Climategate scientist that there has been no measurable global warming over the past 20 years — something he has previously vociferously denied. The admission by Dr. Benjamin Santer, a top global-warming alarmist, should have made headlines — but, of course it didn’t.

Continue reading

Greenland Ice Loss Has Contributed A Negligble 1.5cm To Sea Level Since 1900


 This is a reblog of a posting on No Tricks Zone.
 The topic is how the warmers and their cohorts in the media exaggerate the effect of melting glaciers  are having on sea level rise.  This posting is one more confirmation that the US media do not understand the metric numbers.
 ================================================
NO TRICKS ZONE

Since 1993, Greenland’s Ice Sheet Melt Has Added Just 0.39 Of A Centimeter To Global Sea Levels

Exposing ‘Staggering’ Ice Sheet Melt Deceptions

In recent months, two new papers published in The Cryosphere have provided a condensed summary of the ice-melt and sea-level-rise consequences of global warming for the Arctic region.

1.  Between 1900 and 2010, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) has melted so extensively and so rapidly that the GIS ice-melt contribution to global sea level rise has amounted to 1.5 centimeters for the entire 110-year period.   One-and-a-half centimeters.  That’s 0.59 of an inch!

2. It gets worse.  Between 1993 and 2010, the contribution to global sea level rise has been a disturbing 0.39 of a centimeter.  Almost 4/10ths of a centimeter.  That’s 0.15 of an inch!


Leeson et al, 2017

Melt water from the Greenland ice sheet contributed 1.7–6.12 mm [median 3.9 mm, or 0.39 of a centimeter] to global sea level between 1993 and 2010


Fettweis et al ., 2017

SMB [surface mass balance, Greenland Ice Sheet] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal.”

“Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance] anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 centimeters], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s


Breakdown: 1900-2010 GIS Sea Level Rise Contribution

1920s-1930s: GIS contribution to sea level rise: 1.1 cm

1993-2010: GIS contribution to sea level rise: 0.39 cm

1940s-2000s: a null contribution” [to sea level rise]


Washington Post Peddles Alarmism With Deceptive ‘Trillion Tons’ Of Lost Ice Pronouncements


It’s scary to learn that the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost a “staggering” 9 trillion tons of ice since 1900.

It’s not scary to learn that 9 trillion tons of ice losses actually amounts to less than 1 inch (0.6 of an inch, or 1.5 centimeters) of sea level rise contribution from Greenland meltwater since 1900.

So what does a world-renown news organization like the Washington Post do with this contextually-weighted scientific information?   Of course, like most other media organizations in the modern era,  the Post attempts to frighten the public with disturbing trillions of tons of lost ice exclamations without emphasizing the modest and nearly imperceptible sea level impact such “staggering” ice losses produce.

In December, 2015, the Post‘s Chris Mooney summarized “Greenland’s massive, centennial contribution to sea level rise”.


Washington Post  (December, 2015)


It is apparent from reading the article that Mooney is either (a) unaware that less than 1 inch of long-term sea level impact is not “massive”, and therefore using that descriptor in conjunction with  trillions-of-tons of ice loss can be misleading, or (b) he is aware that less than 1 inch of sea level impact in 110 years is not especially alarming, so he buries this inconvenient detail in the body of the article and instead he focuses on employing terms like “staggering” and “massive” and “trillions” and “disturbing” and “alarming” in an effort to conceal.

It would appear that (b) is more likely.

Notice above how Mooney cursorily acknowledges that 1 inch of global-scale sea level rise from 9 trillion tons of melted GIS ice “may not sound like much”.  But then, to recover, he misleadingly pivots to hypothetical scenarios, equating what one inch of sea level rise would do if this water equivalent from across the world ocean was only dumped on the United States’ interstate highway system.  (How does fantasy writing like this make it into a serious science article?)

And then, to pile on another thought experiment, Mooney adds the obligatory “if the entire ice sheet were to melt” conjuring so he can mention that “20 feet of sea level rise” is what’s at stake here.

One inch in 110 years isn’t enough to garner attention, but 98 feet (times 63) of submerged U.S. roads and global coastal areas is quite the scary scenario.

The Washington Post employed this same misleading and diversionary strategy about 8 months later, again relying on the “9 trillion tons of ice” lost study to scare readers.


Washington Post (July, 2016)


If Misleading Readers Wasn’t Allowed, What Would The ‘Honest’ Headlines Look Like?


If news organizations weren’t allowed to mislead readers about climate science, what would the headlines say?

With regard to the long-term (and recent) ice melt records for the Greenland Ice Sheet, a non-deceptive, non-misleading headline might look something like this.

Please check in to this posting on NoTricksZone by clicking here.

Continue reading

An Iceberg As Big As Delaware–Should We Be Worrying?


An iceberg as big as Delaware!   For those of you that are saying, “what’s a Delaware,?” — it is the second smallest State of the USA’s 50 States.   Even so, an iceberg that big is really impressive.  If it ran into the Titanic, the ship’s orchestra would probably not have had time to play for the people before the ship sank. (That’s from the movie– I am not sure the orchestra really played while the ship sank.)

Around 12 July this year, this huge piece of ice broke off from the Larson C ice shelf in Antarctica. The iceberg, named A68, has an area of 5800 km² (2239 miles²).  The authorities say it is the 5th largest berg in history. Because the continent of Antarctica is so inhospitable, it wasn’t till 1821 when an American seal hunter became the first person to actually put foot on this continent. History, in this instance, is very short.

Continue reading

If you are trying to decide if you should go to Al Gore’s new documentary,  read this first.


Al Gore’s new documentary titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opened on July 28 with a limited engagement. Beginning in August, the documentary will be opening in many theaters.  I don’t know how many, as it has not been getting great reviews, but it will be in many more than the initial 4 theaters.

The critics being mostly being quite liberal tend to give this kind of movie a big “thumbs up”. Science has little to do with their ratings of a movie like this, because they are sure if Al Gore produced it, it must all be true. However, the liberal website, VOX said, “Even An Inconvenient Sequel seems a little light on facts at times.” Many of the movie reviewers said it was, in effect, boring.  Maybe that was reflected in the boxofficemojo data published on Sunday, 30 July.  That they said ticket sales for the first day were $61,000, the second day were $43,000 and today (the third day) were $26,000 might reflect the boring viewpoint. 

But Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his first film, didn’t he?  Yes, he did. However, it was the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that presented the award to the newly elected Barrack Obama before he got into office. They awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat of the PLO, too.  That Committee has a very transparent political agenda. It has very little to do with peace.

But never fear gentle reader, Al Gore will not let you down.

Bjorn Lomborg’s comments on just a few of Al Gore’s many prediction misses in his posting “Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses A Few Inconvenient Facts”:

Continue reading

$535 Trillion To Remove CO2 From The Atmosphere


James Hansen, et al have issued a study titled “Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions.  The authors say that unless CO2 reduction begins right away and aggressively the next generation and the one after that will have to spend a $535 trillion to make Earth habitable.  This $535 trillion is not the $trillions that the warmers want to spend to bring CO2 emissions to a net zero by 2050 or 2100 (depending on which warmer group is talking).  The $535 trillion is for removing atmospheric CO2.

The Hansen et al study says the global temperature will melt glaciers and consequently sea level will rise 6 to 9 meters (approximately 20 to 30 feet). Using models, the study determined a temperature rise due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 and then determined that the glaciers will melt which is the big threat. The authors conclude that the current interglacial period would match the Eemian interglacial period which occurred about 125,000 years ago.   That period is believed to have experienced a 6 to 9-meter sea level rise.  The chart below, from Wikipedia shows the current interglacial period, the Holocene and the Eemian and other interglacial periods. Note that the scale is more or less logarithmic and not linear.

A tangential observation—this chart shows that the Globe’s temperature has been much hotter than at present. Also, the Pleistocene running from about 1 million years ago to about 20 thousand years ago shows glacial and interglacial periods.  The peak temperatures are the time of the interglacial and the rest are the times when some part of Earth was covered by advancing glaciers.  Were there SUVs and fossil fuel powered plants putting out CO2 that caused the glaciers to melt?

Continue reading

The Ice Age’s combined horrors – intense cold, permanent drought and CO2 starvation


The New York Magazine posted, “The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells. Some observers think that this posting is so bizarre that it must be a parody; meant to be something like a posting on the ONION. 

I have been planning to discuss some information about CO2.  When I read Part V of Mr. Wallace-Wells essay subtitled “Unbreathable Air”, I had to make it part of the discussion to illustrate why some consider the New York Magazine’s posting is  a parody.  Wallace-Wells notes:

“Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

Where is he getting his information?  Let’s look at what experts have to say about CO2 .

CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful.  The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist say that the TLV is 5,000 ppm.  The Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is the level which a worker can be exposed to day after day for a lifetime without adverse effects. Concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), will make some people feel drowsy according to some sources.  Levels of 70,000 to 100,000 may cause suffocation.    So, Wallace-Wells’ value of 1000ppm is truly a laughable statement.  Perhaps anyone who reads the         “Uninhabitable Earth”  will experience a cognitive decline of 21%.

Continue reading