In Case You Missed It

FROM-The Register

New science: SEAS WILL RISE due to CO2 ... but not for centuries

Not a problem for your children, or theirs (recurring)

By Lewis Page

A new, first-of-its-kind comprehensive scientific analysis has shown that there is little to fear from rising sea levels driven by global warming. The likelihood is that the 21st century will see rises much like those of the 20th, and even in the worst possible case sea levels in 2100 will be far below those foreseen by alarmists.

Read here

Warmist Cargo Cult Science Returns

FROM-American Thinker

By Timothy Birdnow

Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University climate Svengali, a member of the CRU (he figured prominently in the e-mail scandals at East Anglia), and great Pittsburgh Penguins fan (he created the famed "hockey stick graph" that was so influential on the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report) has stepped in it again, this time co-authoring a new study (Kemp et. al) that claims to show a massive acceleration in sea level rise in North Carolina that coincides with the industrial era.

This study claims to reconstruct 2,000 years of sea levels. (It actually extrapolates from a study of shallow salt marshes with an historical reconstruction going back 300 years and based on the prevalence of foraminifera fossils to reconstruct the past sea levels. These reside in the very shallow, sandy pools and die in deeper waters, so theoretically we can see where sea levels were in the past.) They used tide gauge data to calibrate. By observing agreement between direct observations and this proxy reconstruction they can estimate the rate of rise and extrapolate into the past. Or so they claim.

They were exhaustive in their methodology; choosing a whopping two points (Sand Point and Tump Point) to study the fossils and calibrating from data from two other points (Wilmington and Hampton Roads). Their conclusion? Sea level rise has accelerated, and this "correlates" to the industrial era.

According to the abstract:

Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892.

Louisiana comes to mind.

Louisiana has lost considerable coastal marshland as a result of human intervention. Flood control dams and levees prevent swollen rivers from picking up silt, and dredging to keep the coastal waterways open move the silt from its natural place, leading to erosion of the coastal shallows. According to this Tulane.edu paper:

The main forms of human disturbance are the river-control structures such as dams and levees, the dredging of canals, and draining and filling.

[...]

A large part of the sediment gathered by existing marshes is accumulated during seasonal flooding. Flood overtopping and overbank sedimentation, both vital to the survival of existing marshes, were dramatically reduced as large areas ceased to be flooded. River water also helped to reduce marsh salinity and provide nutrients, and its loss has resulted in the breakup and dispersal of large amounts of nutrient-starved marshlands.

And without the extra silt brought from floodwaters, the shallows are subject to erosion and breakup. This would clearly warp the fossil record, but would also warp the tidal gauge record as well; the sea would appear to be rising when in fact the land is sinking, being washed away.

Writing in Wattsupwiththat, Willis Eschenbach provides us with a map of the North Carolina sites from 1733 juxtaposed with a satellite photo from 1990. Notice the radical difference between the two.

Clearly, erosion is a problem here, yet the authors of the paper fail to give it any credence. Of course the fossil record will show sea level rise!

As to the "correlation" between the industrial era and this increase in rise rate, well, the rate increase appears to begin around 1880, well before the rise in industrial emissions. It would not be before increases in land-use change that would contribute to erosion.

The only plus in this work is that Mann signs off on the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age -- something he steadfastly refused to do while defending his "hockey stick graph." This paper admits that both occurred, and the authors should have realized that this also explains why there was sea-level rise increase during the 19th century, but it seems to go over their heads.

Of course, older tide gauge data is likely to be poor, too, and the older data is suspect.

And it's not even consistent with itself. According to Willis Eschenbach:

The first conclusion is that as is not uncommon with sea level records, nearby tide gauges give very different changes in sea level. In this case, the Wilmington rise is 2.0 mm per year, while the Hampton Roads rise is more than twice that, 4.5 mm per year. In addition, the much shorter satellite records show only half a mm per year average rise for the last twenty years.

So they have taken two, count them, two records and averaged them!

This also contradicts all other studies that show a far lower sea-level rise.

This is in no way, shape, or form science; it is advocacy in costume. It's a play with sets, props, actors pretending to be a work of science. There was a predetermined outcome, the sites of study were chosen with that outcome in mind, and the authors issued a big, glossy press release before the publication of the paper in order to make a splash with the salivating dogs of the mainstream media. They knew this would be analyzed to death, but wanted it to get before the public first. Likely the public would hear that, yes, sea levels are rising faster and would get little of the rebuttal.

Despite this, people like Mann continue their climatological malpractice, and are even accorded respect. Such shoddy workmanship in any other field would put the principal into another line of work.

But not in climatology; being a charlatan hack seems to be de rigueur.

During the Second World War Allied airfields brought wonderful treasures to New Guinea, and when the war ended the natives, believing the airplanes were from the gods, built their own airports, hoping to use sympathetic magic to bring back the planes and their wondrous treasures. Richard Feynman coined the phrase "cargo cult science" to illustrate a form of pseudo-science, something that looked like science but was not -- like the "airports" of the islanders.

This is cargo cult science at its most onerous.

STOP THE PRESSES !

Sanity in the Main Stream Media

FROM-Washington Times


EDITORIAL: Al Gore’s seawater swindle
Latest report shows oceans are not rising

Eighteen years ago, Al Gore warned that Florida’s coastal regions would one day be wiped off the map. “Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades … up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated,” Mr. Gore wrote in his book, “Earth in the Balance.” A peer-reviewed study published last month by the Journal of Coastal Research suggests the Sunshine State might last a while.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), co-recipient with Mr. Gore of the Nobel Peace Prize, quantified the sea-level rise as being between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100. They argued that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide have been heating up the globe. While man’s CO2 is identical to that emitted by polar bears and other animals favored by environmentalists, the left insists “too much” of it is melting polar ice caps. This, the theory goes, makes the oceans swell.

A former research director with the Army Corps of Engineers and a former civil-engineering professor at the University of Florida decided to put the sea-rise claims to the test. They gathered U.S. tide-gauge readings from 57 stations where water levels had been continuously recorded for as long as 156 years. The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast. “Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century,” the study’s authors concluded. “Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records.”

Perhaps Mr. Gore knows this. Last year, he reportedly dropped $8.9 million on a new mansion in an exclusive California neighborhood perilously close to the Pacific. With six bedrooms, six fireplaces and nine baths, Mr. Gore’s palatial ocean-view estate hardly reflects the carbon austerity he expects from everyone else. He was even caught a few years ago by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research failing to extinguish all of the lights in his larger home during “Earth Hour” in the Volunteer State.

This time around, fewer people appeared to participate in Saturday’s futile effort to showcase their awareness of global warming by turning off lights and electronic appliances for 60 minutes. According to the Montreal Gazette, power usage in Edmonton, Canada, actually increased by 1.01 percent during Earth Hour. Power usage did drop in Calgary, but as a power company spokesman explained, the drop “was so minuscule that it couldn’t even be attributed to that particular event.”

As more of the cataclysmic predictions of the global-warming charlatans fail to pan out, these feel-good stunts will become more and more irrelevant. That’s good news because Earth Hour is about hating automobiles and electricity, two of mankind’s most important technological developments. Nothing has done a better job of cleaning up cities and extending human life than the availability of power and mobility. Instead of embracing the cold and darkness for an hour, it makes far more sense to turn on an extra incandescent bulb and read a book by its warm glow. Now that would really hasten progress

Anatomy of the Gravy Train -Update

It is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that climate science  is now not much more than a gravy train for researchers and institutions of all types to milk tax payers money world wide. There are of course other agendas at play but the job security and monetary benefits lubricate the consciences of the riders of the  gravy train.

Here is a brief example of the gravy train in action. The university of Arizona put out a press release titled Rising Seas Will Affect Major U.S. Coastal Cities by 2100. The press release is about a soon to be released paper by some riders employed by the University of Arizona, hence public employees along with some fellow travelers from other institutions.

As you can tell from the title of the Press Release these fine public servants have gone to the trouble of warning us of the dangers of sea level rise in the next century. A portion to illustrate (all emphasis are mine):

The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more.

The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter – or even more. One meter is about 3 feet.

At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century.

"According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that's where we're heading," said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA's department of geosciences. "Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation."

The coastal municipalities the team identified had 40.5 million people living in them, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Twenty of those cities have more than 300,000 inhabitants.

Weiss and his colleagues examined how much land area from the 180 municipalities could be affected by 1 to 6 meters of sea-level rise.

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

Wow, scary stuff, 40.5 million people to be affected, well at least the communities they live in. That is a pretty big deal, that could cause some serious disruption. But what is this "The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter – or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. Thanks for the math lesson by the way I was never much good at that metric conversion stuff, that is why had to go to a conversion table when I read all those IPCC reports. You know those reports that are supposed to be the gold standard on all things climate. The main terminal of the gravy train if you will. One of those conversion I had to make was when I read this information on their chart 3.2.1 of the AR 4 Synthesis Report
Sea Level Rise

B1 scenario 0.18 – 0.38
A1T scenario 0.20 – 0.45
B2 scenario 0.20 – 0.43
A1B scenario 0.21 – 0.48
A2 scenario 0.23 – 0.51
A1FI scenario 0.26 – 0.59

Those figures represent centimeters and as you more educated people know there are 100 centimeters in a meter (I thought that but I had to look it up to be sure) Now putting aside the scenario mumbo jumbo, excuse me model output, nowhere do they predict 100 centimeters. In fact the absolute worse case of the worse mumbo jumbo output is .59 centimeters.

So I went back and read the press release from the University of Arizona to find out where they got this figure  to run their mumbo jumbo to get their output so that they could print up all those scary maps to release to the press, on the taxpayers dime I might add. Well  it doesn't tell us where they came up with that 100 centimeters (one meter, which is about three feet). I guess we'll just have to wait for the actual study to come out. But who actually reads those studies anyway? Why do you need to do that when you can get all the relevant scary details from your local newspaper:

Miami Could Lose 10 Percent of its Land by 2100 Due to Rising Sea Levels

Heck you don't even have to read the press release you can get the super condensed version in the paper, or just read the headline and pass the good news on to your neighbors, how convenient. But back to the case of the missing 82 to 41 missing centimeters depending on your favorite scenario.

Not given any specifics as to the source for the reason for my soon to be beach front property either in my local paper or the UA Press Release I just Googled One meter Sea Level rise and  the very first thing that popped up was this article from Science Daily

Sea Level Rise Of One Meter Within 100 Years

Which in part says:

According to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the global climate in the coming century will be 2-4 degrees warmer than today, but the ocean is much slower to warm up than the air and the large ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are also slower to melt. The great uncertainty in the calculation of the future rise in the sea level lies in the uncertainty over how quickly the ice sheets on land will melt and flow out to sea. The model predictions of the melting of the ice sheets are the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's predictions for the rise in sea level are not capable of showing the rapid changes observed in recent years. The new research has therefore taken a different approach.

Yeah man! A new approach that is what we need. the heck with those model driven scenarios we want cataclysmatic results! So what did they do? Follow closely:

With the help of annual growth rings of trees and analysis from ice core borings researchers have been able to calculate the temperature for the global climate 2000 years back in time. For around 300 years the sea level has been closely observed in several places around the world and in addition to that there is historical knowledge of the sea level of the past in different places in the world.

By linking the two sets of information together Aslak Grinsted could see the relationship between temperature and sea level. For example, in the Middle Ages around 12th century there was a warm period where the sea level was approximately 20 cm higher than today and in the 18th century there was the 'little ice age', where the sea level was approximately 25 cm lower than it is today

Let's stop right there, please feel free to read the entire article or go to the abstract here but let me first ask a very simple oh, let's just call it a naive question. From the article and report :

..in the Middle Ages around 12th century there was a warm period where the sea level was approximately 20 cm higher than today

Now the whole purpose of this little exercise is to connect global warming to sea level rise...correct? And one of the foundations of the whole global warming argument is that we are experiencing unprecedented warming....correct? As a matter of fact a great deal of verbiage and scientific literature has been expended to try to show that what we are experiencing now and will in the future is unprecedented and that the Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as todays climate...correct? Remember the Hockey Stick ?

The reason for this debate about the MWP is that if it were warmer in the 12 century without man made influence then what we are experiencing now is not unprecedented in modern geological history then the whole theory of Man Made global warming is moot for many reasons. Not the least of which is that a higher temperature in the past did not lead to the dreaded tipping point which the global warming theory hinges upon. As I have previously pointed out:

The importance of whether or not the MWP was warmer than today really has little to do with precedented or unprecedented as if it was some sort of sports record, the real importance has to do with the "enhanced" greenhouse theory itself. If a period of time measured in centuries not decades were more than 1.2 degrees warmer on average than is projected to occur due to increased CO2, what happened to the famous tipping point? Yet we are to believe in a few short decades we will reach a tipping point that centuries of warmer temperatures of the past did not tip? This is the true importance of the Hockey Stick. Remember too we have not, to my knowledge, ever been told where the starting point is. What is the pre-industrial temperature which was the starting point on our road to the fabled cataclysmic tipping point?

Yet in the very article and report which is trying to convince us of catastrophic sea level rise. we are told that in a period prior to man made global warming sea levels were higher than today due to warmer temperatures. Got it?  In a nutshell the given purpose of the study, to prove that warmer temperatures drive sea level rise, shows that in the 12th century sea levels were higher than present, then the temperatures in the that time must have been warmer than present. End of Hockey Stick, End of tipping points, end of alarm.

Despite the obvious flaw in the reasoning of this report not to mention the finagled science that went into putting it together, this one meter study is important fuel to the gravy train, as shown by the recent AU study. After all if you can say "According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that's where we're heading," and have some peer reviewed scientific published study to back you up, well then you can justify further studies based upon that study and the train just keeps  moving down the track.

Even better still, whenever the public says "hey wait you guys are really hyping the threat here." Scientist throughout the community with all humility reply, "it is not us, the media takes our scientific research and sensationalizes it," This despite the fact that they put out the press releases, knowing that the media will do nothing more than keep the hype going, generating more fuel (funds) for their gravy train. The climate science gravy train has a self perpetuating never ending source of fuel.

Back to metrics for a second. Why was it important that a study be done to show these higher Sea Level rise numbers?  If the IPCC projections are correct, then even the most dramatic rise of  59 centimeters is not all that catastrophic, after all it rose almost half that amount back in the 12th century, right? In fact it could be argued and was and is that based upon current science it would make more sense to adapt to the rising seas than shut down our carbon based economic growth. So when science does not fit your agenda and threatens to derail the gravy train, you need new science and so they produced it.

The problem in all of this is that policies are being determined and laws and regulations written based upon speculation not actual science. Communities are changing their zoning laws, developments are being stopped, the insurance industry is getting in on the act and a host of other consequences are taking place based upon agenda driven gravy train fueled science.

So in reality as the AU press release says, in a perfect example of self fulfilling prophecy, countless communities and millions of coastal citizens are being affected by sea level rise-science. 


Oh and where do they get  "8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present"


Choo, Choo....Choo Choo....Choo, Choo

UPDATE:

The current rate of sea level increase is 3.1 mm per year which means that by the end of the century sea levels will increase 28 (27.9) cm. This is 72 cm shy of a meter.

If you start the calculation at the start of the 21st century you can ad another 3 cm to this or 31 cm which is 69 cm shy of a meter rise in this century.

In order to reach a meter increase in Sea Level rise in this century (since 2000) you would have to increase the rate by 7.6 mm per year for the next 90 years. Which means the annual increase would have to be approx. 10.7 mm per year every year from now until the end of the century. As I said it currently is at 3.1.

So every year that goes by from here forward without reaching that 10.7 mm threshold only increases the rate at which the increase must accelerate in order to reach one meter.

If you take the high end of the IPCC scenario of .59 meters and the current rate of sea level rise you are still left 18 cm shy of reaching that projection beginning 2000 and ending at the end of the century.

In order to reach the IPCC's most dire projection, the rate of increase must accelerate by 2mm per year for the next 90 years, or approx. 5.1 mm per year and again every year it does not reach that threshold it will have to accelerate even faster in the years to come.

The AU study and press release is based upon the full one meter increase by the end of the century. Those oceans best start  rising really fast really soon for those maps not to be just very expensive toilet paper.

I am only semi confident in my math so please check if you wish

UPDATE 2

Knowing the math involved; here is what these studies are counting on. From another paragraph from the Science Daily article

When the ice age ended 11.700 years ago, the ice sheets melted so quickly that sea level rose 11 millimeters per year – equivalent to a meter in 100 years. In the current situation with global warming, Aslak Grinsted believes, that the sea level will rise with the same speed – that is to say a meter in the span of the next 100 years

I would suggest to the authors that they may want to check out the location and amount of the available ice to be melted relative to today. I suspect that increase was based on ice melting from far larger glaciers and far south of where today's ice fields are located. Seriously, do these scientist believe that the land based ice in the world, aworld  where ice covered Boston hundreds of meter thick is comparable to our modern world?  Do they not even realize that the ice that was available to be melted 11,700 years ago has already pretty much been melted and is in our oceans already. How alarmingly naive and simplistic are today's scientist.

Frightening actually

Sea level blunder enrages Dutch minister

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

H/T Andrew Bolt

FROM-RNW


In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

Climate-sceptic MPs were quick to react. Conservative MP Helma Neppérus and Richard de Mos from the right-wing Freedom Party want the minister to explain to parliament how these figures were used to decide on national climate policy. "This may invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever," Mr De Mos said.

The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland. The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.

The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350.

Urbanisation
Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about climate-change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.

There used to be 6,000 measuring posts, they say, but now there are just 1,500. A number of weather stations in colder areas like Siberia and the Arctic were dismantled, while the remaining stations were in more moderate zones. As a consequence, data from colder areas was no longer used in the calculations.

D'Aleo and Watts also point to discrepancies between terrestrial and satellite measurements. Satellite weather stations report that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has remained stable, with a slight fall since 2001.

Earth-based weather stations report an increase in warmth which, according to the two Americans, reflects the process of urbanisation. Measuring posts that used to be in remote rural areas have gradually been surrounded by roads, buildings or industry, all of which produce heat.


Solar activity
Dutch researchers reporting to Minister Cramer on Wednesday said that global warming appears to be slower than had been assumed. In a brochure published by the Dutch Platform for Communication on Climate Change (PCCC) the academics say that sunspot activity was relatively low over the past decade and will continue to be low for the foreseeable future.

The lower the solar activity, the smaller the warming effect. According to the PCCC, the average temperature may even decrease by between 0.2 and 0.4 degrees, but they warn that this is just a slight dent in the much stronger rising trend. "The heat is still on," according to the PCCC report.



More...

Rahmstorf all wet...again.

So much for that consensus huh. This Rahmstorf has a habit of being an alarmist beyond the norm. You have to love this :

"Rahmstorf is very good at publishing extreme papers just before big conferences like Copenhagen when they are guaranteed attention. The problem is that his methods are biased to generate large numbers for sea-level rise which cannot be justified but which attract headlines."

Wow that is not how science is done? Wasn't it Peer reviewed?



FROM-Times On Line

Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’

Critics say an influential prediction of a 6ft rise in sea levels is flawed

Climate science faces a new controversy after the Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit which suggested that global warming could raise sea levels by 6ft by 2100.

The research, published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, created headline news during the United Nations summit on climate change in Denmark last month.

It predicted an apocalyptic century in which rising seas could threaten coastal communities from England to Bangladesh and was the latest in a series of studies from Potsdam that has gained wide acceptance among governments and environmental campaigners.

Besides underpinning the Copenhagen talks, the research is also likely to be included in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would elevate it to the level of global policy-making.

However, the studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts.

Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: "These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory."

The row comes just weeks after the so-called climategate affair when emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit revealed how scientists tried to withhold data from public scrutiny.

The new controversy, which has no connection with Climategate, dates back to January 2007, when Science magazine published a research paper by Rahmstorf linking the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001 with a 0.7C rise in global temperature over the same period.

Most scientists accept those data and agree that sea levels will continue to rise. However, Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100 — when the world is projected to have warmed by up to 6.4C unless greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.

Based on the 7in increase in 1881-2001, Rahmstorf calculated that such a spike in temperature would raise sea levels by up to 74in — a jump that stunned other experts.

They say it is unsafe to use the relatively small increases in sea levels seen in the 19th and 20th centuries to predict such extreme changes in future.

Another critic is Simon Holgate, a sea-level expert at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Merseyside. He has written to Science magazine, attacking Rahmstorf's work as "simplistic".

"Rahmstorf is very good at publishing extreme papers just before big conferences like Copenhagen when they are guaranteed attention, " Holgate said "The problem is that his methods are biased to generate large numbers for sea-level rise which cannot be justified but which attract headlines."

One key problem cited by Holgate is that much of the 1881-2001 sea-level rise came from small glaciers melting in regions such as the Alps and Himalayas. Such glaciers are, however, disappearing fast and will be largely gone by 2050. It means further rises in sea levels would have to come from increased melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

These hold enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 200ft, but their recent contribution to sea-level rise has been negligible. Jonathan Gregory, a sea-level specialist at the Met Office, said: "We do not know enough about the physics of large ice sheets to predict how global temperature rise will affect them. My concern about these extreme predictions is that they could discredit the whole process because they are not backed up by solid science and that is vital in such a political area of research.”

Rahmstorf said he accepted the criticisms but his work was "the best system we have got". He added: “I agree that there has been too little research into the behaviour of ice sheets but that is exactly why I did this research. It uses simple measurements of historic changes in the real world to show a direct relationship between temperature rise and sea level increase and it works stunningly well.”

Rahmstorf said the last decade had, however, seen preliminary evidence suggesting that the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica were becoming unstable. He said: "In my heart I hope my critics are right because a rise of the kind my work predicts would be catastrophic," he said. "But as a scientist I have to look at the evidence . . . my figures for sea-level rise are likely to be an underestimate of what the world will face by 2100."


More...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM- The Philadelphia Inquirer

Letters: Article on sea level drew wrong conclusion

The article on rising sea levels was informative but also disappointing. The information presented on the research and methods was very well done. The reporting on the conclusions from the research was less than forthcoming ("A sinking feeling at Shore?", Tuesday).
First, the rise in sea level pre-1915 clearly supports the opinions of many climate scientists that it is highly unlikely that man's activities and CO2 are the cause of global warming.

Second, the view of a vast majority of climate scientists and others who have studied the data is not whether the Earth is warming and/or cooling but that climate is cyclical and not man-driven.

Third, paleoclimatology, which depends on evaluating sediment and tree rings to establish baselines, is highly speculative (as the recent e-mail scandal revealed) and not as solid an evidence base as the article indicated.

In short, the major conclusion of the article should be that we should prepare for an ever-changing climate and its impact but not destroy our economy by curbing human productivity - which will be needed to deal with the real affects of climate change.

Michael del Rossi

Lower Gwynedd

More...

Global warming activists ignore the science they claim to support

FROM-Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal

Todd Myers

When discussing global warming, one phrase recurs: “scientific consensus.” Environmental activists often cite “science” when arguing for far-reaching and costly responses to global warming. Ironically, those activists ignore the findings of that same science. The potential impacts they cite are based not on science but on speculation which contradicts the actual science.

One activist claimed that, “In the lifetime of a child born today, sea levels could rise three to six feet.” The scientific consensus says this is nonsense. Using the science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), University of Washington scientists found the most likely sea level rise for the next century is about 13 inches, with the high of 50 inches called “very unlikely.” Understand also, sea levels rose about one foot during the last 150 years.

When it comes to sea level science, environmental activists ignore the findings they pretend to support. The same is true with recent storms. Many people, from environmental activists to the Governor, claim that recent storms, like those that caused floods in Centralia, are evidence of global warming. Top local climatologists, however, disagree.

University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass says the link between climate change and recent storms is false. He notes that “there is no strong evidence for these claims,” and that “initial simulations of future Northwest climate do not suggest heavier rain events.”

Activists seize upon weather headlines in the hope that the public will believe they are linked to climate change, even when they are not. Recent wildfires are also cited as evidence of climate change. The National Wildlife Federation claimed that “Warmer temperatures are also to blame for the invasion of mountain pine beetles, which have already decimated over 32 million acres of forest in Washington and British Columbia.”

Forestry scientists say the primary cause of insect infestations is that too many trees are fighting for too few nutrients and water. In many Washington forests there are many more trees per acre than hundreds of years ago. Stressed trees cannot fight off natural infestations that were manageable for centuries. While working at the State Department of Natural Resources, I spoke with many foresters and entomologists who demonstrated this very process.

Until recently, the environmental community made this very argument. Arguing for a “natural” policy of letting forest fires burn, the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance said in 2001 that “Because we have vigorously enforced a no-burn policy in these forests, many have become clogged with thick clusters of trees that could easily explode into the monstrous conflagrations…” They have since changed their tune, not based on the science, but on politics.

Warmer temperatures can increase infestation, but ignoring the role of overstocked forests, and opposing the thinning necessary to help those forests recover, demonstrates a commitment to science only when it is convenient.

The threat to polar bears is another claim trotted out in a fact-free way. I spent a week in Barrow, Alaska one November, braving 30 degree below zero temperatures to see these truly magnificent creatures. I have a strong affinity for them. But we must not ignore the facts. Polar bear populations are higher today than during the last forty years. Many more bears are killed by hunters each year than by climate change. The belief that polar bears are drowning is based more on the cartoon segment of Al Gore’s movie than on the reality of these notoriously strong-swimming animals.

One final claim is that climate change will have a dramatic impact on our mountain snowpack. Scientists have repeatedly rebutted the claims made by climate alarmists. Snowpack has actually increased since 1980, a period when temperatures were increasing.

U.W. scientist Mark Stoelinga argues that increasing temperatures may impact snowpack, but that many other factors are involved. He notes that in recent decades, “We can’t see the global-warming signature in terms of a decline in snowpack.” Claims that, in the words of one environmental activist, “nearly 60 percent of the Cascade snowpack could be lost,” are political, not scientific.

There is a real risk from the increase in carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere. But a crisis mentality that relies more on fear than science is the surest path to costly solutions that fail to solve the real problem.

Todd Myers is environmental director at Washington Policy Center, a non-partisan independent policy research organization in Seattle and Olympia

More...

My Global Warming Epiphany

"Over the time of the chart above, man did pretty well. His population grew from fewer than 10 million to almost 7 billion. He had an agricultural revolution, an industrial revolution and an information revolution. He started cities. He started writing. He started recording his own history. He walked on the moon."

FROM-American Thinker

By Randall Hoven

Global warming is a complicated subject. It therefore takes a lot of hubris or ignorance to think you can explain either the "for" or "against" case in a few hundred words. But I stumbled onto some data that meets my "keen grasp of the obvious" threshold for understanding.


Recall that we really need to answer "yes" to four separate questions before we join the Al Gore religion of "sign the treaty immediately or we will all die."


(1) Is the globe getting warmer?


(2) If so, is man doing it?


(3) If so, is it bad?


(4) If so, is the massive-reductions-in-CO2 approach the best way to deal with it?


You might have seen such questions before, but they frequently get mixed up in public discussions. For example, some people imply that if the answer to (1) is "yes", then the answer to (4) must be "yes" as well. If the temperature graph is going up, destroy your SUV. Or at least switch light bulbs.


However, Bjorn Lomborg thinks the answers to (1) through (3) are "yes", but that the answer to (4) is "no." He once challenged Al Gore to debate that fourth question alone. But Mr. Gore treated Lomborg as he would any other global warming skeptic or "denier", comparing him to tobacco companies of old and lecturing him about arctic ice caps and sea levels.


I am not only stuck on question (2), I'm stuck on question (1). I've seen graphs of temperatures, such as the so-called "global" temperature. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, presents such a graph in its "Summary for Policy Makers." While this graph does present to the eyeball a rising trend, one could ask several questions.....read entire article here

More...

"inveterate liar"

FROM-Buy The Truth

Filthy Dreamers

If you are the President’s chief scientific advisor then you have a duty to be informed and keep informed, and a duty to refrain from making indisputably false statements. Such responsibility is obviously too much for John Holdren, who has shown himself again as an inveterate liar (see earlier posts All who hate Me love Death and Growth of Crops, Weeds, CO2 and Lies). In a recent interview with New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert, Holdren repeats the litany of ‘evidences’ for anthropogenic global warming, which he must know are patently untrue if he has read any scientific literature over the past few years. Holdren said:

We all talk about the acceleration of climate change in its impacts that we’re observing. One sees the incidence of wildfires going up more rapidly than people expected, the incidence of heat waves and droughts going up more rapidly, sea level is rising more rapidly… All of these indicators are moving more rapidly.

Wrong on all counts. It’s simply impossible for Holdren to be honestly mistaken here, because the data in some cases comes from US government agencies. Consider sea level rise. There is not the slightest evidence that “sea level is rising more rapidly”, that this represents an “acceleration of climate change in its impacts”. When Holdren says “One sees…” he cannot mean to ‘foresee’ as a ‘seer’ might do, since his previous statement makes it clear that this is one of the accelerating ‘impacts that we’re observing’. Well, it’s really very easy to determine Holdren’s integrity since we can simply look at the data that ‘we’re observing’. Do records show that sea level rise is accelerating, “rising more rapidly”? Not at all: sea level rise has been pretty steady over the last 100 years, except in the last few years when it has appeared to slow down significantly, even to the extent of appearing to show a declining trend since 2006. Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility correctly states

One definitive statement we can make is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating.

Who knows what the future holds, but it is simply deliberate falsehood to claim that there is an acceleration in sea level rise. Check it out for yourself: here is the data (over thousands of years, a hundred years, and 15 years):









Note that the last graph is from NOAA, a US government agency. One scientific conclusion that can be drawn from these graphs is that sea level rise to date is not anthropogenically related.

What about droughts? Are they increasing, and are they accelerating in their increase? Neither! The latest data has been compiled by Sheffield et al in the Journal of Climate (2009), Global and continental drought in the second half of the twentieth century: severity-area-duration analysis and temporal variability of large-scale events. The authors

identified 296 large scale drought events (greater than 500,000 km2 and longer than 3 months) globally for 1950-2000…the mid-1950s showed the highest drought activity and the mid-1970s to mid-1980s the lowest activity.

So, over that 50 year period, drought was greatest when CO2 concentration was lowest. As for recent trends, we can find this in Sheffield and Wood’s paper in the Journal of Climate (2008), Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950-2000, from Observation-Driven simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle, which records

Trends in drought duration, intensity, and severity are predominantly decreasing…concurrent changes in drought extent are evident, with a global decreasing trend of between -0.021% and –0.035% yr-1.

Sorry Holdren, drought is not only not on the up and accelerating upwards, it is declining globally in extent, duration, intensity and severity.

Maybe Holdren was just talking about USA? No chance!

Over the Americas, trends are uniformly negative and mostly significant.

So we could go on. Again, no informed and honest person could make the statements Holdren does. Holdren has been spouting nonsense since the late 1960s and 1970s, and has spent too much time in cahoots with dreamers like the notorious atheist Paul Ehrlich, his co-author on several books. Ehrlich made the following ridiculously foolish predictions:

(1968) The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.

(1969) Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles…the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979…the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics.

(1969) If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in year 2000.

(1970) In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.

(1974) nutritional disaster seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s)…A situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death.

These filthy dreamers are in the mode of the climate alarmist Stephen Schneider, another of Holdren’s long-time friends and associates, who infamously said

…we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have…Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.

In the early 1970s, Schneider, who studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was “full on” about catastrophic global cooling, and he discounted the idea that increasing CO2 would mitigate it by causing global warming. In Schneider S. & Rasool S., Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141, he wrote

It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

Of course, Schneider jumped once he saw the CO2 bandwagon coming along, and has been a diehard CO2 global warming alarmist ever since. But we know from his 1971 paper that he’s aware he is perpetrating a lie. We know where the balance between being effective and being honest lies with him.


More...

"It's getting deep in here"

"Noah managed to survive the great flood. I think we will survive the minor flood even if it does occur. "

FROM- American Chronicle

Rising Waters or Rising Rhetoric?

Government, Inc., is in full stride on a broad front to reduce carbon emissions so the world will be safe from the rising oceans, at least so goes the theory. Of course those bright p0liticians in Washington assure us it is not a theory but an established scientific fact that carbon emissions will cause the temperatures to rise and that the ice caps will melt and inundate the low lying regions of the world. We are assuming that they are only talking about the ice caps on Greenland and Antartica. The floating ice at the North Pole and those at the South Polar region will not add one inch to the ocean level even if they did melt entirely since they are already in the water. (When you have a glass of iced tea and the ice cubes melt the level in the glass does not rise and the same is true with the floating ice caps.)

Let's think through some of these assumptions they are making even if we aren't blessed with PhD's in climatology. Firstly, it should be remembered that the ice caps on Greenland and Antartica comprise about 2% of the total water on the planet. Only 3% of all the water on earth is fresh water, 97% is in the oceans already. All of the ice in those two spots will not melt. Maybe quite a bit of it but not all of it. Unless the earth flips or its tilt is dramatically altered those regions will always be very very cold because they have little sunlight during their respective winters. Those regions will remain cold for eons and much of the ice will remain and there will be future snow falls to replenish some of the ice. The earth was at one time totally dry and nothing but volcanic action and deserts existed; that was caused by the turmoil deep within the earth itself, not from the atmosphere. If all of the ice melts it would be due to other factors than carbon emissions. Something dramatic would have occured to the geology of the earth or its configuration in the heavens. In that event carbon emissions would be the least of our worries. We would all be dead.

I would like some very hard data from the bright guys giving their estimate about how much of the ice will in fact melt if their predictions are corret. We should all be allowed to see their data and then their conclusions. If half the ice remains then we are talking about a 1% increase in the total volume of water in the oceans. But that over states the case because a certain percentage of that water would be in the form of water vapor. That increase in water vapor will add to the snow fall amounts somewhere. There will always be an area of the earth that will be cold because it is away from the Sun. But assume it is 1% then how will that affect the ocean levels around the world?

The earth is not perfectly round. It is egg shaped and furthermore the polar regions are flattened. Folks figured that out a few centuries ago before slide rules or computers were available. The distribution of the new water would not be evenly spaced everywhere on earth. Don't forget that the Moon has a tremendous influence on the oceans and the levels of them--ever heard of the tides? We also have to consider that for every action there is a reaction. As the volume of water was reduced on Greenland and Antartica the tremendous weight of that water would be reduced and those land masses would rise and I betcha there would be an offsetting deflection in the earth somewhere for that rise. That lowering of the earth's crust would take up at least some of the increased volume of water. That is basic geology and physics. I don't think carbon emissions will change those. Our crustal suface is only a few miles deep relative to the diameter of the earth. Mostly the interior is molten iron sloshing about. Thank goodness it does slosh about because that is what gives us our magnetic field which in turn is what protects us from the harmful radiations from the Sun; without that magnetic field we would die.

Assume the depth of the ocean off the Browery in New York Harbor is 100 feet right now. A 1% increase would be one foot. I don't think that would flood Manhattan. That assumption is based on a completely even distribution of the new melt water over the earth which is unlikely but a worse case scenario is ok. There would be some benefits too if the worst occurs. If great chunks of Greenland become ice free and the temperatures rise it would be ripe for food production as would a great many other areas of the world that were barren or ice bound. Siberia would become the new grain belt of the world.

I have an open mind on these matters but I want details, not conclusions and certainly not political posturing about this issue. What I don't like now is that is what we are getting. We are told temperatures are rising. Well, don't tell me that, show me the data. Is the temperature rising in Albany, Springfield, Arles, Munich, Darwin, etc.? What is the time period used? Lastly what is different about any rise in temperature this time that is different than those we have seen before. You historians will recall that the earth was quite warm during the Roman Empire days and the time of Jesus. All those people ran around with capes and togas. England at that time was one of the prime wine producing regions of the civilized world. Was it carbon emissions of that very small population that caused such a spike in temperatures then? I have questions. I learned long ago not to take as the gospel everything said by a pundit or a PhD with an agenda. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. We are investing trillions and gambling our economy on those conclusions that I am not sure about.

Noah managed to survive the great flood. I think we will survive the minor flood even if it does occur.

More...

Skeptics From Around the Globe

UNITED STATES

Dr. James J. O'Brien, the Robert O. Lawton Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography, founded COAPS.



"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world, but everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming.

When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water. When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it melt. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle. It is a major scare tactic used by the global warming people."


More...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-TC Palm (My local paper)
Letter: Everglades purchase flies in face of global warming

Who actually believes in global warming? Surely not our government or our governor, who have agreed to put millions of dollars in restoring the Everglades.

According to learned scientists, the oceans will rise three to five feet by the end of this century. So, the Everglades will be part of the ocean floor in about 80 years.

Maybe the next project will be to build a dike around the Everglades to protect it from the encroaching ocean.

Frankie Schott

Micco


More...

"Whew, what a relief !"

" ... I think the question of the Maldives being completely wiped out may be overstated."

from Taiwan News
Experts: Maldives may last beyond this century

Since climate change fears first gripped the globe, tourists have flocked to the Maldives to enjoy the islands' spectacular vistas before they vanish.
Do they really need to rush?

Scientists have long warned that the Maldives, an archipelago nation of nearly 1,200 islands in the Indian Ocean, will be wiped out by rising sea levels in the coming decades. President Mohamed Nasheed is so convinced of his nation's demise he has proposed relocating all 350,000 inhabitants to other countries. On average, the islands are 7 feet (2.1 meters) above sea level, making them the lowest-lying nation on Earth.

Most experts agree the Maldives have plenty to worry about: In the worst-case scenario, if global sea levels rise higher and faster than expected, the islands may indeed be swallowed up.

But some recent data challenge the widespread belief that the islands are destined to disappear _ and a few mainstream scientists are even cautiously optimistic about their chances for surviving relatively intact beyond the next century.

"The outlook for the Maldives is not all doom and gloom," said Paul Kench of the University of Auckland in New Zealand. "The islands won't be the same, but they will still be there."

Kench said his studies of the Maldives show the islands can adjust their shape in response to environmental changes, such as the rising seas and warmer temperatures predicted in the next century.

Kench suggests the islands might move onto their reefs and build vertically, offsetting the potential threat of sea level rises. His research _ published together with other scientists from Australia, New Zealand and the Maldives _ shows some islands have rebuilt themselves as much as 1.6 feet (49 centimeters) higher. Their studies have been published in recent years in journals including Geology and the Journal of Geophysical Research.

"It's quite convincing work and seems to be quite widely accepted by the scientific community," said Andrew Cooper, a professor of coastal studies at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland.

"They have detailed geological evidence that this kind of growth has happened before in the past. ... I think the question of the Maldives being completely wiped out may be overstated."

Following the devastating 2004 Asian tsunami, many scientists assumed the Maldives would be damaged. But Kench and his colleagues not only found little evidence of island erosion, but also that the tsunami had washed sediment ashore, making some islands taller than they were before the catastrophe.
Kench warned, however, that while only a small number of Maldivian islands may not be able to adapt to rising sea levels, those are unfortunately the ones where many people live: Male, the nation's capital, and Hulule. Residents of those islands will probably need to relocate to another country or move to other Maldivian islands that won't disappear so quickly, he said.

Building taller and moving to higher ground are examples of a hot trend in climate change policy: emphasizing adaptation.

While much global warming work aims to limit emissions, adaptation advocates argue for the need to combat the inevitable effects of climate change through forward planning and construction. That includes moving people, building sea walls, and new construction techniques.

Sea levels worldwide have been steadily rising, except in a handful of places, including the Maldives. But in the last 50 years, some data from satellite pictures and tide measurements suggest sea levels in the Maldives have dropped by as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters).
"That was definitely unexpected," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. Overpeck said the decline in the Maldives' sea levels is probably due to local factors like ocean temperatures and currents.

Such data is inconclusive, however _ and with few available records, the Indian Ocean remains one of the world's least understood oceans.

Jianjun Yin, an assistant research scientist who monitors sea levels at Florida State University, said the drop in the Maldives could be caused by increased evaporation in the Indian Ocean. Evaporation makes water more dense, thus lowering sea levels.

Yin said the Maldives' defiance of the global trend of rising sea levels could be temporary. "I don't think the Maldives will disappear in a few decades, but maybe in another hundred years it will become a very serious situation," he said.

Other scientists think coral reefs may help save the islands. Under normal conditions, reefs can grow inches (centimeters) every year, allowing them to keep up with at least some sea level rise. The reefs form natural barriers that protect islands from being eroded by rising sea levels.

But rising tides and temperatures may conspire to stunt the corals' growth. As sea levels rise, light conditions underwater worsen, making it difficult for the reefs to expand; their health also depend upon relatively cool waters.

"One of the $64,000 questions is whether corals will be able to grow fast enough to keep up with sea level rises," Cooper said.

Many scientists estimate that by 2100, global sea levels will rise by 3 feet (91 centimeters), due to melting ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. But because no one knows how fast these will melt, that figure comes with a significant margin of error.
"That is a huge question which limits our ability to predict what is going to happen in the Maldives," said Steve Nerem, a professor at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research.

Scientists are unsure if water from the melting ice caps might hang around Greenland and Antarctica, or if they will spread out across the Earth's oceans _ and if they do, how fast that spread will happen.
Though uncertainty about future sea level rises may be good news for the Maldives _ and for tourists seeking their sandy beaches _ most scientists urge the country to make contingency plans.

"We just don't know enough to be confident one way or the other," Overpeck said. "And in this case, if you make a mistake, you lose an island. You lose a nation."


More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

FROM- C-3

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #31:
Wellington, NZ

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Wellington, New Zealand is averaging less than a foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)







More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

FROM-C-3

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #30:

Sidney, Australia

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Sidney, Australia averaging less than 4 inches per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)




More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

From-C-3
Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #29:
Kushimoto, Japan

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Kushimoto, Japan is averaging about one foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)

More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

from c-3

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #28:
Xiamen, China

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Xiamen, China is averaging about a third of a foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)


FROM-

More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

FROM-C-3

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #27:

Cochin, India

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Cochi, India is averaging about a half-foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)

More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

FROM-C-3

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #26:
Maloy, Norway

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Maloy, Norway is averaging about a third of a foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)

More...