Sea levels are NOT rising!

[emainvol]

But the IPCC, the AGW advocates and various enviro groups have made that claim.

The fact of the matter is that sea level receded 6mm in 2010.





Well then let's go over some salient points.

Claim:

Sea levels are rising in a catastrophic manner due to human CO2 emmissions.

Reality:

They are not.

Claim:

Human CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans.

Reality:

They are not.


The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?



Other salient points:

Something like 80% of Eatth's volcanic activity is sub-oceanic and has not been studied much at all, with recent study we have found that CO2 emissions from those events have been VASTLY underestimated and until some sort of ball park figure can be put on that factor, all computer models are useless since most of that emitted CO2 rises to the sruface of the ocean and is emitted into the atmosphere.

Secondly, until computer models quit way overestimating the value of CO2 in the atmosphere as it pertains to global warming and/or climate change then those computer models are worthless.

Claim:

We must greatly reduce CO2 emissions in America or face untold calamity.

Reality:

We have an idiotic political energy policy that only a brainwashed moron would believe in.

You seem to be arguing a completely different point than I am making. I said nothing at all related to CO2 emissions.

Also, 6mm is hardly a significant change, especially when you observe this data set http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt

I could give a **** what the enviro groups are saying, because they quite obviously lack the ability to read graphs, kind of like the guys that are writing the blog posts you are quoting.

So again, since I am obviously capable of reading a graph, how does that make me the liar?

 

[gsvol]

Yep. I don't post too often, but when I do, I know what I am talking about.



Definitely off topic, but you are correct. Corn isn't the only plant which burns through all the nitrogen in the soil. Most plants grown on an industrial scale do. Planting legumes every third or fourth year is one of the ways to combat this. Synthetic nitrogen based fertilizer is another.



Unfortunately, no.

1) Starvation is man made. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone.

2) The increase in CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are fairly negligible. Plus, temperature differences and climate changes are different all over the world. Some places get more precipitation, less precipitation, warmer, or cooler. Thus making a prediction about overall food production is foolish. Some places will increase while other places will decrease. Climate is just too complex to make accurate predictions.

That said, there is a difference between theoretical notions and reality. Reality, in nature there are too many variables to just isolate a single independent variable. Theoretically, in a lab, with all other variable the same, increase CO2 levels will help food production of C3 plants.



Agreed. Ethanol from corn in this country was ridiculous. Places like Brazil, where they make it from excess sugarcane, it is more reasonable. Biofuel on a small scale is still not a bad idea; especially from waste products like used cooking oil.

Well it seems we are more or less on the same page.

The trouble with the Brazilian production is that they have cleared a good bit of rain forest to do so.

Save the rain forest, make mental notes.

 

[gsvol]

You seem to be arguing a completely different point than I am making. I said nothing at all related to CO2 emissions.

Also, 6mm is hardly a significant change, especially when you observe this data set http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt

I could give a **** what the enviro groups are saying, because they quite obviously lack the ability to read graphs, kind of like the guys that are writing the blog posts you are quoting.

So again, since I am obviously capable of reading a graph, how does that make me the liar?

We usually end up talking about two different things 99% of the time.

I don't recall calling you a liar.

The important thing here is the layer of lies that make up the climate change agenda.

Take a look at page 10A in today's Tennessean under 'Tennessee Voices'.

It's written by an adjunct professor from the department of English and philosophy at Murray State in Kentucky.

How the hell is that supposed to be a Tennessee voice?

That's beside the point, the point is that this jerkwat isn't even qualified to write an article titled 'pipeline jobs is a poor swap for safe environment.'

He quotes another one of Hansen's idiotic statements, Hansen's former boss said he is an embarrassment to NASA, you don't have to research very far to find that Hansen is a nutcase to the nth degree.

Academia and the media parrot all this treehugger BS 24/7/365 and as they say, a lie told often enough becomes the truth and the bigger the lie the more apt people are to believe it.

As for no significant change in the graph, the point is that there has been no significant rise for at least the last century and as a matter of fact sea level has indeed receded over the last decade.

That being the case why do we still hear of the threat of dangerous rises in sea levels from the climate change people?

The current energy policy of this administration seems to be designed to cripple the American economy and a license to steal.

 

[gsvol]

A good thing:

Oh, by the way, ethanol subsidies are dead. | RedState

Congress has just let both the ethanol subsidy and a restrictive foreign tariff (on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol) lapse. Given that the Iowa caucuses will be finished by the time Congress reconvenes – and given that the House of Representatives is currently chock-heavy with people who spit at the very phrase ‘ethanol subsidy’ – getting back either is going to be a problem for the domestic ethanol industry. Mind you, there are still mandates for using ethanol in place, but note again the ending of the tariff; I’m not a businessman, but effectively lowering the price of Brazilian ethanol by 54 cents/gallon while simultaneously effectively raising the price of domestic ethanol by 45 cents/gallon sounds to me like it would at least raise some intriguing alternatives.

More to the point, ending the subsidies on domestic ethanol production is frankly more ethical anyway. Far too much domestic ethanol is made from perfectly-good foodstock that could be better served, well, feeding people. The cycle was rather nasty, thanks largely to that subsidy; and, in fact, it’s one of the reasons why food prices have been rising lately.

BTW, the price of feed corn to the local farmer/rancher has roughly tripled since this insanity was started, so the next time you are in the supermarket and don't treat yourself to a nice steak because it's sort of on the too highly priced side, connect the dots, federally mandated ethanol use is the main cause of most of the increase in prices.


cost to produce electricity:
• natural gas - 25 cents per megawatt hour
• Coal - 44 cents per megawatt hour
• Nuclear $1.59 per megawatt hour
• Wind Energy $23.37 per megawatt hour
• Solar Energy $24.34 per megawatt hour

These numbers do not include the additional subsidies we taxpayers have been compelled to pay for wind, solar and biofuels through the stimulus plan.

(neither does it include the interest on foolish loans we should never have taken that may never be paid off but that's really another topic)


A terrible thing.

The US has, according to some, about 60% of the world's coal reserves, enough to last at least 200 years, does it make any sense to stop converting coal into cheap energy in America?

To the marxists in the Obama administration, evidently so.

Cutting Through The Fog: The EPA: The Grinch Who Stole Christmas From America and the Coal Industry

Last Wednesday, just days before Christmas, Carol Browner, Obama's radical Climate Czar, announced new EPA restrictions for mercury, arsenic, and other toxic substances being outputted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants. Compliance is required before 2014. Hailed as a victory by environmentalists, it is expected that it could mean the demise of nearly 60 existing coal-fired power plants with upwards of 22 million customers being affected; mostly in the already beaten up and declining cities and states in what is known as the Rust Belt. Some communities could see their power bills rise by as much as 30%. Most of the country may see rates go up by 10% as this nation's nearly 600 coal-fired power producing facilities are retrofitted with expensive new or modified smokestack "scrubbers" that will be needed to drastically reduce these types of emissions.

Of course, Obama and his EPA could care less about the impact on energy prices and the fact that thousands may lose their jobs in what is already a slow economy. Instead, they claim that their actions are all about saving lives and preventing illness.
-------------------------------

So, with the power companies, themselves, already policing coal out of business, why this new ruling and why now? Why an unreasonable two year compliance mandate? I'm quite sure that the EPA didn't just, all of a sudden, connect the dots on the health risks of burning coal. And, if there truly is a deadly health risk, why did it take 3 years into the Obama Administration before the EPA decided to act on saving lives?

To me, the purpose, the timing, and the compliance requirements of this EPA ruling have "politics" written all over it. First of all, the new regulations conveniently appeal to Obama's environmental voting base in what is the beginning of an election year. Secondly, the decision comes just a little over 10 months away from the next Presidential election. As a consequence, the negative impact on jobs and energy prices are being held off, presumably, until Obama has been reelected. After all, if the EPA had implemented these new regulations in Obama's first year in office, higher electricity rates and job losses would have already been apparent; jeopardizing Obama's reelection bid. Also, the 2-year, forced compliance to the new emissions standard insures that there won't be enough time for the power industry to retrofit all of it's existing coal plants; forcing them to take many of those plants out of service. This also insures that the power industry won't have the needed time to replace those lost plants with any new and compliant facilities. Two years isn't enough time to get EPA approvals let alone have the needed 3 to 5 years to build a new power plant. Thus, brownouts can be expected. In turn, angry customers and public utility commissions will force the power companies to replace the lost power with expensive wind and solar facilities which you can expect to sail through the EPA approval process and, which, can be built in substantially less time than any brick-and-mortar, natural gas power plant.

Back in 2008, when a, then-Senator, Barack Obama was running for the presidency, he unabashedly said that it was his intent to "bankrupt" the coal industry and, in so doing, necessarily cause electricity prices to "skyrocket."

You know, I think that is the only thing that Barack Hussein Obama didn't lie about.

 

[emainvol]

We usually end up talking about two different things 99% of the time.

I don't recall calling you a liar.

The important thing here is the layer of lies that make up the climate change agenda.

Take a look at page 10A in today's Tennessean under 'Tennessee Voices'.

It's written by an adjunct professor from the department of English and philosophy at Murray State in Kentucky.

How the hell is that supposed to be a Tennessee voice?

That's beside the point, the point is that this jerkwat isn't even qualified to write an article titled 'pipeline jobs is a poor swap for safe environment.'

He quotes another one of Hansen's idiotic statements, Hansen's former boss said he is an embarrassment to NASA, you don't have to research very far to find that Hansen is a nutcase to the nth degree.

Academia and the media parrot all this treehugger BS 24/7/365 and as they say, a lie told often enough becomes the truth and the bigger the lie the more apt people are to believe it.

As for no significant change in the graph, the point is that there has been no significant rise for at least the last century and as a matter of fact sea level has indeed receded over the last decade.

That being the case why do we still hear of the threat of dangerous rises in sea levels from the climate change people?

The current energy policy of this administration seems to be designed to cripple the American economy and a license to steal.

Thats fair, as long as we can agree that the changes are not significant enough to say that there is a trend of rise or fall in the levels

 

[gsvol]

Thats fair, as long as we can agree that the changes are not significant enough to say that there is a trend of rise or fall in the levels

Sure, but there is a minor trend of decline which further places in doubt the outrageous claims of the climate change people.

Now let's move on to another of the outrageous claims made by the climate alarmists, the sea is acidfying, threatenting to kill all life in the oceans.

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

The first thing of note regarding pH is that alkalinity is harder on living things than is acidity. Both are corrosive of living tissue, but alkalinity has a stronger effect. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s true.
-------------------------------

Similarly, when rainwater (slightly acidic) falls on the ocean (slightly basic), it has a neutralizing effect on the slightly alkaline ocean. Rainwater slightly decreases the pH of the ocean. Despite that, we don’t normally say that rainwater is “acidifying” the ocean. Instead, because it is moving the ocean towards neutral, we say it is neutralizing the ocean.

The problem with using the term “acidify” for what rainwater does to the ocean is that people misunderstand what is happening. Sure, a hard-core scientist hearing “acidify” might think “decreasing pH”. But most people think “Ooooh, acid, bad, burns the skin.” It leads people to say things like the following gem that I came across yesterday:

Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.

Idiotic, misleading crap such as this that we are constantly bombarded with is what I call brainwashing.

In reality, it’s quite the opposite. The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity.
---------------------

With that as prologue, let me go on to discuss the paper on oceanic pH.

This goes on to get fairly technical but it does present a lot of facts and one of those facts is that the alarmist's claim that reefs are dying because of human caused CO2 emissions is COMPLETELY FALSE.

My conclusions from all of this?

First, there are a number of places in the ocean where the pH swings are both rapid and large. The life in those parts of the ocean doesn’t seem to be bothered by either the size or the speed these swings.

Second, the size of the possible pH change by 2100 is not large compared to the natural swings.

Third, due to a host of buffering mechanisms in the ocean, the possible pH change by 2100 may be smaller, but is unlikely to be larger, than the forecast estimate shown above.

Fourth, I would be very surprised if we’re still burning much fossil fuel ninety years from now. Possible, but doubtful in my book. So from this effect as well, the change in oceanic pH may well be less than shown above.

Fifth, as the authors commented, some parts of the ocean are already experiencing conditions that were not forecast to arrive until 2100 … and are doing so with no ill effects.

As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.

Finally, let me say that I love scientific studies like this, that actually use real observations rather than depending on theory and models.

This part of the discussion isn't complete without mentioning just how much CO2 is emmitted from sub oceanic vents and volcanoes, and science knows very little about that.

 

[gsvol]

Obama's energy czar:

 

[CMcEver]

Explain the polar ice caps extreme melting over the years, and the population of those animals including polar bears being smashed. I don't think anyone cares that the sea levels rise as much as the ice caps melting. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[gsvol]

Explain the polar ice caps extreme melting over the years, and the population of those animals including polar bears being smashed. I don't think anyone cares that the sea levels rise as much as the ice caps melting. I'll hang up and listen.

I could show you graphs where nothing abnormal is happening with the ice cap in the Arctic ocean on the north pole is happening and the ice cap on Antarctica is deepening and that Polar bear population is increasing rather than decreasing but deprograming someone as indoctrinated as you will take a while.

Give me some authentication of your claims.

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

Defund the IPCC Now | Watts Up With That?

The report says that the State Department provided $19 million dollars to the IPCC. Thanks, guys. Foolish me, I hadn’t realized that paying for bureaucrats to go party in Cancun and Durban was part of the function of the United States Department of State.

I also found out that the IPCC got $12.1 million dollars from the US Global Change Research Program. That one really angrifies my blood. The IPCC flat out states that they do not do a single scrap of scientific research … so why is the US Global Change Research Program giving them a dime, much less twelve million, that was supposed to go for research? I could use that for my research, for example …

The 2011 GAO report had some strong advice for the climate profiteers behind this secretive funding. They said:

“Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time,”
-------------

PS—The GAO report is available here. And all is not lost, at least one Congressman is working to defund the IPCC:

Wrapped into the many amendments recently passed by the House of Representatives — a total of $60 billion in spending cuts that the president called a “nonstarter” — was one by Republican Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the group whose occasional missteps have been the source of countless confrontations among climate scientists over the past year.

 

[gsvol]

Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Goes Chicken Little With Laughable Rising Sea Hysteria | NewsBusters.org

Such is the premise, chock full of laughable hysteria mixed in with premonitions of massive governmental spending based on a theory yet to be proven, in this Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel front page story by David Fleshler. As Chicken Little Fleshler describes, the plan to combat an unproven problem isn't just any plan, it's a BATTLE plan:
--------------------

"A battle plan for an anticipated assault by seawater has been drafted by four South Florida counties, attempting to protect one of the nation's most vulnerable regions from the impact of climate change."
---------------------

"Sea levels in South Florida could rise by one foot by 2040-2070 and two feet from 2060 to 2115, according to an analysis prepared by the scientific staff of the four counties, using federal, state and academic studies."
----------------------

Yeah, the dollar signs are rolling even as Fleshler types. Since the average elevation of South Florida is only about 6 feet, "modifying" existing roads would be a multi-billion dollar task since the highest ground altitudes in this area are known as speed bumps. Mr. C.L. Fleshler then goes on to assure us that according to "experts" Global Warming is a FACT, Jack!
-------------------

And here is where Fleshler gets very disingenuous at his devious best...or worst. He doesn't cite any of the many scientists with contrary viewpoints about Global Warming or flooding. Instead he quotes a non-scientist Tea Party member in a pathetic attempt to marginalize any opinion that dares to counter the liberal Global Warming dogma:
-------------------------

So how tough would it have been to find a qualified scientist to counter the sea rising narrative presented by Fleshler? Some very brief research on the topic would have quickly yielded the name of the person considered to be the world's leading expert on the subject of sea levels, Doctor Nils-Axel Mörner. And what does Dr. Mörner think about the unproven theory of the rising seas? This UK Telegraph article reveals the answer:
-----------------

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."

...The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

 

[gsvol]

Finding Big Foot, Finding Global Warming - Forbes

Against this backdrop, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by incessantly ridiculous claims and headlines about global warming.

Global warming causes earthquakes.
Global warming causes depression.
Global warming causes tsunamis.
Global warming causes wife beatings.
Global warming causes acne.
Global warming causes AIDS.
Global warming causes a greater likelihood of a UFO invasion.

No, seriously, scientist-activists and their media allies have alleged each of the above, and then some.

Just as microscopes and telescopes are glaringly missing on the “science” and “history” shows about sasquatches and UFOs, so too is the Scientific Method glaringly missing from alarming global warming claims.

“Global warming is a crisis because our computer models predict it will be.”

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

Playing global warming games with glaciers - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Over at Real Science they have pulled back the curtain on another of the global warmists’ deceptive tactics.

We will republish here what they have to say, which is so revealing of the way the warmists work:

“One of the more popular climate scams employed by the EPA, Katherine Hayhoe and many others – is to show photographs of glaciers from the 1940s (or later) next to recent photos. The implication being that these glaciers started to retreat sometime recently, and that it is due to global warming.

“This is blatant fraud. These glaciers have been retreating for hundreds of years, and it has nothing to do with CO2. The glacier in the EPA photograph above retreated eight feet per day between 1794 and 1879.”