Category Archives: Sea Level

How Credible Is The IPCC Climate Reporting?


The Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has issued their 2013 report “Climate Change Reconsidered II-Physical Science”.  This report, a Summary for Policy Makers (SMP), challenges the data within the IPCC’s SMP scheduled for release this month.

Let’s contrasts the two reports.  The NIPCC science is empirical data based.  The IPCC also includes empirical data but their methodology relies heavily  on computer based guesses projections,  the scientific conclusion are revised to satisfy political objectives and the IPCC is not home to scientists that want to submit studies that contradict the message that global warming is man-made.  NIPCC says this about the IPCC: “The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.”   They start with a conclusion and look for studies that support the conclusion.  That’s not the the scientific method.

Continue reading

There Is A Difference Between “Warm” And “Warming”


The National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its State of the Climate in 2012: Highlights on August 2. The report says:

Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D.   

The report itemizes those things from which they have developed the theme that the planet is becoming a warmer place. The first on the list was this one:

Warm temperature trends continue near Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record.  

Now you are forgiven if you interpret that item as saying that the Earth is getting warmer, and indeed most of the media jumped to that conclusion.  But what are the facts?  Look at the HadCrut* temperature chart for the period from 1998 to 2012 that NOAA made this claim:

Continue reading

Study Forecasts Sea Level Rise That Is 10X Actual Rise In Last Century


A recent study “Rapid Accumulation of Committed Sea-level Rise from Global Warming” asserts that some 1700 US cities and towns will be below sea level by 2100. The study was authored by Benjamin H Strauss for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  The study is behind a paywall.  Dr Don J Easterbrook has reviewed the claim and he has spelled out his thinking in a Climate Depot posting. (Those views will constitute the body of this posting.)  Easterbrook says:

The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time. So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss…the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot.”

Continue reading

Chinese Academy Of Science Adopt Heartland’s “Climate Change Reconsidered”


The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) books, Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report published by the Heartland Institute has been translated from English to Chinese by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).  These books “..present a sweeping rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ controversial Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports were widely cited as the basis for taking action to stop or slow the advance of climate change”.

According to the Heartland Institute:

“The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the world’s largest academy of sciences, employing some 50,000 people and hosting more than 350 international conferences a year. Membership in the Academy represents the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists. The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16), and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25).

The first 856-page volume of Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, and its follow-up, the 430-page Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,were produced by a team of scientists originally convened by Dr. S. Fred Singer under the name of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

chinaccrcoverclimatechangereconsidered

                  Climate Change Reconsidered is translated into Chinese

 

Jim Lakely, director of communications at the Heartland Institute told Breitbart  News:

“Translating and publishing nearly 1,300 pages of peer-reviewed scientific literature from English to Chinese is no small task, and indicative of how important CAS considers Climate Change Reconsidered to the global climate change debate. That CAS has invited the authors and editors of Climate Change Reconsidered to a conference this Saturday in Beijing to introduce the studies is yet another indicator of how important it is to get this information out to a wider audience.”

Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast added:

“A December 2012 UN meeting designed to provide climate change regulations ended in failure after China refused to sign a global climate change treaty. China was joined by the United States, as well as Canada, India, Japan, Russia, and Brazil. “Opposition to a new climate treaty is justified based upon the real science presented in Climate Change Reconsidered.”

Hopefully,  the mainstream media will take note.

cbdakota

Low Lying Pacific Islands Are Not In Danger Of Being Inundated By The Sea


The theater of doom, aka the global warming Alarmists, portray the islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Federated States of Micronesia and others to soon be inundated due to rising sea level.  But a recent study by Auckland University and published in the New Scientist magazine says otherwise.  ABC News reports the following:
“The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.
Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.
“Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said.
“Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.
“We’ve now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years.”
Dr Kench says the growth of the islands can keep pace with rising sea levels.”
At the end of the ABC posting Dr Kench does say:  “…. further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kirabati and the Federated States of Micronesia.”    
I have a problem squaring that with his statement: “…the growth of the islands can keep pace with rising sea level.”  It may be the often seen effort to keep himself in the good graces of the Alarmists who seem to want to use their power to punish scientists that veer too far from the approved message.  Those Alarmists are want to punish these errant folks by trying to keep them from getting any more grants or getting published in science journals.  Remember those activities were exposed in the leaked Climategate I release.
To read the rest of the ABC posting, click here.
(h/t to WattsUPWithThat)
cbdakota

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE: SCIENCE AND POLITICS


A referred paper in Quaestiones Geographicae* written by Cliff Ollier titled “Global Warming and Climate Change: Science and Politics “ maintains the idea that global warming will bring on devastation is a dangerous belief.  Ollier challenges the belief that CO2 is a major force in defining the globe’s climate.   He also takes on the corollary issues such as sea level, the Sun and climate.  The abstract to the paper follows:
The threat of dangerous climate change from anthropogenic global warming has decreased.
• Global temperature rose from 1975 to 1998, but since then has leveled off.
• Sea level is now rising at about 1.5mm per year based on tide gauges, and satellite data suggests it may even be falling.
o Coral islands once allegedly threatened by drowning have actually increased in area.
o Ice caps cannot possibly slide into the sea (the alarmist model) because they occupy kilometres-deep basins extending below sea level.
o Deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years and in all that time never melted, despite times when the temperature was higher than it is today.
o Sea ice shows no change in 30 years in the Arctic.
• Emphasis on the greenhouse effect stresses radiation and usually leads to neglect of important factors like convection.
o Water is the main greenhouse gas.
o The CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere are in equilibrium: if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere the ocean would give out more to restore the balance. Increasing CO2 might make the ocean less alkaline but never acid.
• The sun is now seen as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.
o There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate.
o Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling.
• Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models.
o The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.
The issues listed in the Abstract are explored in some detail in the full paper that you can access by clicking here.
cbdakota

Scientists Baffled By The Stop In Global Warming


P.Gosselin of No Tricks Zone provides climate news from Germany in English. He has done this and incorporates his excellent insights, when he reviews Der Spiegel’s, (a major German newpaper) article titled “Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung” (Trans…Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).
Gosselin says that:
 “The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we now explain it to the public?”
My equally as stunned reaction is why aren’t the American media, etc also stunned? I guess perhaps it is because the US is the mother load of grant money.

Climate Change Impacts In The USA are Already (NOT) Happening


This posting’s title, “Climate Change Impacts In the USA Are Already (Not) Happening” is a direct lift of a Craig Loehle, Ph.D. essay that was posted on the WattsUpWithThat website.   Loehle says that the US Government reports by such groups as “NASA, NOAA, EPA, USFWS, USFS, USDA and other agencies mention that climate change impacts are already observable in the USA.” Loehle adds: “This is discussed in the context of endangered species conservation, forest resource assessment, future water availability, disaster planning, agriculture policy, etc. I have read many of these reports, which often refer back to the IPCC or the US Global Change Research Program. But they are usually vague on details of what bad things are expected to happen, generally referring to increases in extreme events. Nevertheless, these vague bad things are being used to guide policy.

The USA has some of the best data and is a large country. Are bad effects of climate change really visible already? In what follows, I address the evidence often put forward to support these claims and compare these to the literature. The true story is far from alarming.”

Loehle discusses what the facts support about these observable climate impacts versus the vague bad things that the Government is spinning. The main topics he weighs in on are:

  • Ocean Acidification
  • Sea Level Rise
  • Temperature Increases
  • Floods
  • Regional Drought Frequency
  • Extreme Storm Events
  • Hurricanes
  • Fires
  • Algal Blooms
  • Changes in Ecosystems

That is a comprehensive list.  He includes references for your examination.  Click here to see the complete essay.

Loehle concludes saying: “Within the United States, the claim that bad climate effects can “already” be detected is a totally subjective and unsupported hypothetical.”

Read Loehle discussion of each of these topics.  Then spread the word.  You have to do it via the Internet and/or conversations with family, co-workers, and friends.   We cannot depend on the media as they just regurgitate whatever the alarmist say.  Partly because the media loves doom, gloom and blood to try to catch their reader’s interest.

cbdakota