The Final Day of the Climate Crisis

CLIMATE: ONLY ONE DAY TO GO!

From The Guardian, May 4, 2007:

UN Scientists Warn Time Is Running Out to Tackle Global Warming

Governments are running out of time to address climate change and to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures, an influential UN panel warned yesterday.

Greater energy efficiency, renewable electricity sources and new technology to dump carbon dioxide underground can all help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the experts said. But there could be as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.  (Emphasis added.)

Those eight years run out tomorrow.  So I assume that climatistas will shut up tomorrow night.

Lawrence Solomon on “Why the Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age has begun”

I first became aware of weather as a political factor while a college student. As a history major,  I studied the French Revolution, largely caused  by a drought that ruined grain harvests in France the years just before it began in 1789. Prior to that, I learned of the very cold 18th century winters that froze the Thames in London and forced George Washington to battle ice floes as he crossed the Delaware RIver on Christmas Eve 1776 on his way to defeat the Hessians at Trenton. I soon learned that these atmospheric conditions were caused by what has come to be known as the Little Ice Age. Climate scientists have now counted 18 such Little Ice Ages and are now describing the onset of the 19th. Click the link below to read the details -Keep Warm.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-global-warming-doomsayers-take-note-earths-19th-little-ice-age-has-begun

“Environmentalism as a Religion,” by Michael Crichton

I read this article along with MIchael Crichton’s book, “State of Fear” about ten years ago. I noted a reference to the article and the book today and present it for your reading pleasure. He “hits the ball out of the park” with this accurate description of our newest religion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The greatest challenge facing mankind is to distinguish reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth always has been a dilemma, but in the Information Age—or, as I think of it, the Disinformation Age—it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must decide daily whether the threats we face are real or not, and whether the solutions we are offered will do any good. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part supplied by the people around us and the society we live in; in part generated by our own emotional state, which we project outward; and in part results from actual perceptions of the world. In short, our struggle to determine what is valid is the need to decide which of our perceptions are genuine and which are false.

As an example of this challenge to mankind, I want to talk about environmentalism. In order not to be misunderstood, I need to be perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to live our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including those to other people and the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the biosphere. I feel the world has genuine difficulties and that they can and should be improved. Yet, I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely complicated, and the results of our deeds very often are hard to know in advance. I suppose our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often have gone awry. Moreover, we do not recognize our previous failures or face them squarely—and I think I know why.

While studying anthropology in college, one of the things we learned was that certain human social structures always resurface. They cannot be eliminated. One of those is religion. It is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best and most enlightened—do not believe in any creed. However, you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely reemerges in another. You may not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. It seems to be the faith of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it is a religion? Well, just look carefully at the beliefs. What you see is a perfect 21st-century mapping of traditional Judeo-Christian dogma and myths. For example, there is an initial Eden, a Paradise, a state of innocence, and unity in nature; there is a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and, as a result of our actions, there is a judgment day coming. We all are energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek deliverance, which now is called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment, just as organic food is its Communion.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative concepts. They even may be hardwired in the brain. I certainly do not wish to talk anyone out of them, just as I have no desire to dissuade anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead. The reason that I have no wish to debate these convictions is that I know that I cannot. These are not facts that can be argued; these are issues of faith.

So it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly, it seems, facts are not necessary because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It is about whether you are going to be a sinner or saved, one of the people on the side of salvation or on the side of doom, one of us or one of them. Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we understand a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago, our new knowledge base is not really supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet they refuse to die. Let us examine some of those notions.

There is no Eden. There never was. When was that Garden of the wonderful mythic past? Was it the time when infant mortality was 80 percent, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? Was it a time when one woman in six died in childbirth; when the average lifespan was forty, as it was in the United States a century ago; when plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke; when millions more starved to death? Was that Paradise?

What about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony in an Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived travelers who crossed the land bridge from Asia almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up to accelerate the process. What was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly. The people of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare—generations of hatred and perpetual battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous even today: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztec, Toltec, Inca. Some of them practiced infanticide and human sacrifice. Those clans that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The Dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in surroundings as close to Eden as one can imagine, fought continually, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life for stepping in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths and their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction. There even was an academic movement, during the latter twentieth century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man’s invention to demonize indigenous races. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, the ritualistic consumption of human flesh indeed does occur. Meanwhile, all during this time, New Guinea highlanders continued to eat the brains of their enemies, until they finally were made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease. Remember, too, that the African Pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet. Conversely, the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent entity.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. Those who do are not romantic about it. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them; they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all living things, but they still kill animals and uproot plants in order to eat and to survive. If they do not, they will die.

If you put yourself in nature, if only for a matter of days, you quickly will be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin and bugs all over your body, biting in your hair and crawling up your nose and into your ears. You will have infections and sickness, and if you are not with somebody who knows what he or she is doing, you very rapidly will starve to death. Chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you will not experience nature so directly since you will have covered your entire body with DEET.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people desire is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real sense, and no one does. It is all talk, and as the years go on and the world population grows increasingly urban, it is uninformed talk. Farmers know of what they speak; city people do not. They just have their fantasies.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they have not the least knowledge of how nature truly is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled; they climb a mountain in dicey weather, without the proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on their holiday because they cannot conceive the real power of what we blithely call “the force of nature.” They have seen the ocean, but they never have been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they picture it. They think all life experiences can be TiVo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and does not give a damn about their expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated individuals in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste and decorate their apartments as they like. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them. The natural world is not so malleable, however. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it—and if you do not, you will die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world that most urban Westerners never have experienced.

Many years ago, I was trekking in the Karakoram Mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a freezing cold, glacial river, which was running very fast, although it was not deep—maybe two-and-a-half or three feet. Nevertheless, my guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot-deep river? “Well,” he replied, “supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture.” We were four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double-time to get help, it still would be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter, if one were available. In that time, I probably would be dead from my injuries.

Now, let us return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind was never noble, kind, nor loving, and we did not fall from grace, what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming if we all do not get down on our knees and conserve every day? Yet, something has been left off the doomsday list lately. Although the preachers of conservatism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade, world population seems to have taken an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime, the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion to 15 billion to 11 billion—which was the United Nations estimate around 1990—to 9 billion today and, soon, perhaps less. There are some individuals who now think that world population will peak in 2050, and, that by 2100, there will be fewer people than there are today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say hallelujah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population, or the impending predicament of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out to be false. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They never were there, although they still appear on the horizon, as mirages do.

Okay, so the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they are human. So what? Only it is not just one prediction; it is a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of global resources. Famed biologist Paul Ehrlich projected that 60 million Americans would die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty-thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by the year 2000. On and on and on it goes.

With so many past failures, one might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. Not if it is a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard who predicts the end of the world does not quit when the world does not cease on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with them.

I can list some facts for you. I know you have not read any of these in the newspaper because newspapers do not report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen, did not cause birds to die, and never should have been banned. The people who outlawed it knew that it was not toxic and halted its use anyway. The DDT ban has caused the loss of tens of millions of people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced Western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the Third World. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth-century history of America.
Secondhand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the Environmental Protection Agency always has known this. The evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents ever would admit. The percentage of U.S. land area that is taken up by urbanization, including cities and roads, is five percent. The Sahara desert is shrinking, and the ice in Antarctica is increasing. A blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the twenty-first century—not wind, solar, or even nuclear power. A totally new technology—like nuclear fusion—is necessary, otherwise nothing can be done. In the meantime, all efforts are a waste of time. That was reported when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases.

I can, with a great deal of time, give you the factual basis for these views and cite the appropriate sources. These are not wacko magazines, but the most prestigious science journals currently in print. Yet such references probably would not impact more than a handful, because the convictions of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of unshakable faith.

Most of us have had the experience of interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible alternatives which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the only course, and everyone else is wrong. They are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things in the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are inherently rigid and completely uninterested in opposing points of view.

I want to argue that now is the time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the planet, similar to that which occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. This time around, though, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We have to stop the mythic fantasies and halt the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons we must get rid of the religion of environmentalism. First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that faith tends to kill people, and environmentalism already has decimated somewhere between 10 million to 30 million people since the 1970s. That is not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be rational, flexible, and based in objective and verifiable science. Moreover, it must be apolitical. To mix natural concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the truth—that there is very little difference between the parties on this subject, except for pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans will not. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: archconservative Richard Nixon, a staunch Republican. Also keep in mind which president sold the federal oil leases, that allowed drilling in Santa Barbara, California: Great Society architect Lyndon Johnson, a prototypical Democrat. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Fundamentalists think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of Planet Earth is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past—for example, in managing national parks—is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests may never recover. We should be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We should be trying various methods, open-minded about assessing the results of our efforts, flexible about balancing needs. Religion does none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion and back to a scientific discipline? The answer is simple: We have to institute a far more stringent set of requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply are not true. It is not that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest possible way. Not at all. What more and more groups are doing is putting out blatant lies; falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At the moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. It probably is best to shut it down and start over. What we need is something much closer to the Food and Drug Administration, an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, fund identical research projects to more than one group, and make everybody in this field agree to honest standards.

In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. If we allow science to become politicized, we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who do not know any better. That is not a good future for the human race. That is our past. So it is time to abandon the religion of environmentalism and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Al Gore’s Climate Change CO2 Claims Are Erroneous

I was in a debate yesterday over Climate Change, or Global Warming, or whatever the idea that atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to rise is called today. I say “atmospheric” because CO2 is present in the oceans in huge amounts.  My argument was based on Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” book and movie that showed graphs showing the results of the Vostok Ice Core analysis that, he said, proved his case, when, in fact, it destroyed his claim.
A link to this analysis is here http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth.
It shows that temperature, the “effect,” says Gore, precedes CO2 increases, the “cause,” sometimes by a century or so.  Of course, that can’t be the case. There is a simple answer to why temperature increases from solar activity increases CO2 in the atmosphere. It is due to the process of “out-gassing.”   When a liquid is heated, its capacity to hold gases is reduced and gases are released into the atmosphere. When liquids cool, the process is reversed and gases are absorbed again.  The simplest explanation is often the best, so there you have it. Look at the article for more on this subject.
The folks I was debating with took offense to this argument and attacked me from several angles. None scored by the way. I was wondering why they would react in this way and have concluded that where I am talking about the science of climate change, they were talking about their religion. What can I say?
By the way, Gore had a very hard time with this fact of “out-gassing” and attacked the Ice Cores themselves and then admitted that the relationship between temperature and CO2 was complicated. His own evidence disproves his theory, and it’s not complicated. .
You may not read about this in the media, but you have it here.  

The Global Warming Hoax: Watch “International Conference on Climate Change” on YouTube

I was introduced to climate change in 2006, about the time the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” appeared. I was immediately struck by the Hockey Stick Graph fraud and the claimed connection between temperature and co2, the suggestion being that co2 caused temperature to rise, but the graph shown indicated that co2 increases followed temperature rises. Even Gore said “the relationship is complicated.”
As to the Hockey Stick Graph, I pointed out that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had been eliminated.  The speaker was not amused by that as I was supposed to accept this hoax. As to the warming and co2 connection, having the effect, temperarture rise, come before the cause, co2, was baffling. It just can’t be. That is like saying that umbrellas cause rain! Furthermore, the fact that temperature rises would cause co2 to increase is due to “out gassing,” that phenomena of gas escaping from warming liquids, like the oceans, is a scientific fact. The alarmists claim that 97% of scientists agree and etc. That is also a hoax that has been debunked repeatedly. You can look that up.
In addition to these myths, I was struck by how co2, the basis of life on earth, was supposed to be poison (says the EPA). It is a very small part of the atmosphere. How small? There are about 3.5 molecules of co2 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere. A rise to 4 molecules per 10,000 was said to be disaster. Who are they kidding, I thought? Well they are successfully kidding the politicians and a declining portion of the population. The major drive here is the $7billion dollars given to academia to “Prove” climate change, global warming, and other permutations of the hoax.
There are other scares promoted here, coastal flooding, more flooding, more drought, more hurricanes,(there have been fewer) and etc. The glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years and that’s a good thing. If they were growing, thats a sign of an ice age and that is big trouble.  Remember, there has been no warming for17 years, how’s that for an inconvenient truth?
The impetus for this fraud is political power. Scare the people, pass restrictive laws, then claim the earth is saved and we did it, hence permanent political and police power. The goal is power and money, I think it will fail in the long term but we will suffer in the short term.
UPDATE: The International Monetary Fund has just urged higher taxes on oil, natural gas and coal in the 156 countries it works with. The money goes to government.
The link below is to a scientific review of the climate issue and is short and to the point. Take a look.

Link from Powerlineblog.com
International Conference on Climate Change: http://youtu.be/HLZElcvkEDs

United States Undergoing Decade-Long Cooling | Heartlander Magazine

This article gets at the very heart of the climate change debate. NOAA data shows that the US has been cooling for ten years. This is an important article.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/07/06/united-states-undergoing-decade-long-cooling

The Climate Controversy Explained in Detail.

My friend, John Hinderaker has posted this complete, and I assume, accurate account of climate history since the last ice age. Curiously, I was looking at the data since the last ice age earlier this week to gain a prospective on the fallacy of the recent federal report on climate change. Simply stated, the threats and alarms raised by that report have no basis in fact. That the current co2 level, less than .0004% of the atmosphere, is far below ice age levels, .001% to .002% of the atmosphere, debunks the threats.

This article makes the simple observation that it is the presence of “greenhouse gases” that make the earth habitable, for without these heat retaining gases, solar heat would escape to space, as it does on the moon. Furthermore, the sea level rise predicted by the federal report is impossible as the only source of water is locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and these ice sheets survived the co2 levels during the ice age.  

The complete article, from powerlineblog.com, is below. 

WHY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM ISN’T SCIENCE

Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples.

NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.”

Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report.

clip_image004

2. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”

Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

This is a critically important point. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (That’s a good thing; the Greenhouse Effect makes life on Earth possible.) The problem from the hysterics’ point of view is that doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would, without more, have only an insignificant–and in fact, beneficial–effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth would become a greener and slightly warmer place. (It is ironic that “greens” are obsessively hostile to the very substance–carbon dioxide–that makes the Earth green.) The hysterics admit this, so their models are programmed to amplify the effect of increased CO2. They hypothesize positive feedbacks, most notably by assuming that increasing CO2 will lead to a higher concentration of water vapor. The supposedly baleful consequences of burning fossil fuels are mostly indirect; they derive primarily from the feedbacks, not from the CO2.

But, as Easterbrook says, we know that this assumption is false. Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for some decades now, and that has not led to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. On the contrary, as Easterbrook notes, atmospheric water vapor has declined since 1948. So, once again, the alarmists’ models are simply wrong.

Let’s conclude with the NCA’s predictions about sea level rise. For some reason, more liberals seem to make fools of themselves over the idea of a rising sea level than anything else. You see pictures of the Statue of Liberty, up to her waist in water. California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently had to retract a dumb comment about needing to move LAX because the present location will soon be under water. The whole thing is a fantasy:

NCA assertion: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100. This recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years.

Facts: During the last Ice Age (~10-20,000 years ago), vast areas of continents were covered with ice sheets up to 10,000 feet thick. [Ed: That’s almost two miles.] There was so much water tied up in these ice sheets that it caused sea level to drop about 120 meters (400 feet). 11,500 years ago, the climate changed abruptly, warming at rates up to 20 °F in a century, bringing the Ice Age to a very sudden end. The ice sheets melted at an astonishing rate, causing sea level to rise sharply. We know the chronology of this sea level rise (Fig. 21), so we can calculate the rate of sea level rise as the ice sheets melted. Sea level rose 50 meters (160 ft) between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. That’sa rate of sea level rise of 4 feet per century, during a time when gigantic ice sheets were melting from warming of tens of degrees per century.

clip_image044

Figure 21. Sea level over the past 12,000 years.

The authors of the NCA report (and NOAA) want us to believe that sea level may rise as much as 6.6 feet by 2100 (86 years from now), a rate of sea level rise of 7.7 feet per century! That’s about twice the rate at which sea level rose while the huge Ice Age ice sheets melted under warming of tens of degrees per century. So where do the so-called scientists of this report think all this water will come from? Those huge Ice Age ice sheets no longer exist, so the only possible source is melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How likely is it that a 0.006% rise in CO2 is going to melt a significant portion of the Antarctic ice sheet? Probably zero to none. Why couldn’t the so-called scientists who authored the NCA report do the simple math? If they had even read the literature, this analysis has already been published (Morner, 2010).

The East Antarctic ice sheet (the major Antarctic ice sheet with ice up to 15,000 feet thick) first appeared in the Miocene, 15 million years ago. Throughout most of the Antarctic ice sheet history, global CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm (compared to present 400 ppm), so the recent miniscule rise of CO2 is peanuts compared to what it has been. So even doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or quintupling of CO2 would still be well below the levels of most of the ice sheet’s history and the ice sheet survived those quite nicely.

I am sure most people don’t realize how low contemporary CO2 levels are. We are living in a carbon-deprived era. CO2 levels have been 15 times higher than they are at present without any runaway warming, or any other adverse consequence.

The Antarctic ice sheet is continuing to grow, not melt, and sea ice is presently at an all-time high (Fig. 22). The average daily temperature in Antarctica is –58° F, so to get significant ice to melt would require raising the average daily temperature from -58 to +32 ° F (melting point of ice), plus another ~10 ° F, a total warming of +100° F. Not likely!

clip_image046

Figure 22. Antarctic sea ice is presently at an all-time high, about a million square kilometers above average.

Another way to look at the ridiculousness of the NCA predicted sea level rise is to compare their predictions with history sea level rates. The rate of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 was 1.7 mm/yr (~7 inches per century) (Fig. 23). Figure 24 shows a comparison of the sea level rise over the past century with the NCA predicted sea level rise. The huge difference is impossible becausethere is no source of water for the NCA predicted rise.

clip_image048_thumb

Figure 23. Sea level since 1700 AD

clip_image050

Figure 24. NCA sea level rise prediction compared to projecton of sea level rise over the past century.

Global warming alarmism fails the test of science. The alarmists’ models generate one false prediction after another. When a model is falsified by experience, we know that the model is no good. A bad model cannot be a basis for predicting the future, or for making decisions about public policy. Global warming alarmism is not science. It is, rather, an industry fueled by billions of dollars that the world’s political class showers on climate “scientists” to compensate them for producing silly projections of doom. The political class needs the predictions of doom to justify its own grab for more power and money, and certain compliant “scientists” are happy to oblige. Money talks, but it doesn’t necessarily produce good science.