Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 18 Feb 2016 20:49

disha wrote:JohneeG/Neshant., please answer my question.

To your carbon recycling - what happens when forests are destroyed? And their wood burnt? What happens to your CO2 cycle then? Will not CO2 accumulate?

If forests are cut for firewood, then it would effect the nature in two ways: CO2 would increase due to burning wood and less plants to recycle the CO2 back into oxygen. So, cutting forests for firewood leads to increase in CO2. But, if fossil fuels are used, then Forests are cut less. Forests used to be cut more for firewood when fossil fuels were used less. This is particularly true in countries other than India or China where the populations are much less. So, using fossil fuels is better than firewood to reduce CO2.

As for your question: I thought Gus saar answered your question. The theory that Gus saar said was actually Kelvin's theory. He was also the guy who came up with Absolute Zero Temperature. There was another theory called Uniformism which believed that the world existed as it is. Initially, both these theories were opposed to each other and contradicted each other. Before, these two theories, there was already Ice age theory. Then, there is also continental drift theory which was proposed later and it was not accepted for a long time(until the lifetime of the proposer). I think today geologists mostly believe in all these theories. So, some kind of syncretic theory seems to have been evolved at some point by mixing together all these theories.

So, earth was once hot enough to be melted according to Kelvin. Then, earth became cold and this is ice age. Then, the ice age came to an end and earth became warm enough for the life to thrive.(You see warming is not a bad thing according to this theory). And during all this period the continents were shifting all over the place according to continental drift theory. So, according to mainstream geology, climate has been warming and cooling naturally without human intervention.

There are many theories about such long past. And different theories say different things about the actual conditions. And future may bring more theories.. I think it shows that past is as much a mystery as future.

As for the Ice cores: CO2 is soluble in water. Even the coldest ice cores have some water which can and does absorb CO2 and so, they can't be used as a metric for past atmospheric CO2.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2016 02:30

Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries

The oceans are rising faster than at any point in the last 28 centuries, and human emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible, scientists reported Monday.

They added that the flooding that is starting to make life miserable in many coastal towns — like Miami Beach; Norfolk, Va.; and Charleston, S.C. — was largely a consequence of those emissions, and that it is likely to grow worse in coming years.

The scientists confirmed previous estimates, but with a larger data set, that if global emissions continue at a high rate over the next few decades, the ocean could rise as much as three or four feet by 2100, as ocean water expands and the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica begin to collapse.

Experts say the situation will grow far worse in the 22nd century and beyond, likely requiring the abandonment of many of the world’s coastal cities.

“I think we can definitely be confident that sea-level rise is going to continue to accelerate if there’s further warming, which inevitably there will be,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and co-author of a paper released Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Ice simply melts faster when the temperatures get higher,” Dr. Rahmstorf added. “That’s just basic physics.”

In a report issued at the same time as the scientific paper, a climate research and communications organization in Princeton, N.J., Climate Central, used the new findings to calculate that roughly three-quarters of the tidal floods now occurring in towns along the American East Coast would not be happening in the absence of sea-level rise caused by human emissions.

The lead author of that report, Benjamin H. Strauss, said the same was likely to be true on a global scale, in any coastal community that has seen an increase of saltwater flooding in recent decades.

Local factors do come into play, though: Communities on land that is sinking, as in the Chesapeake Bay region of the United States, are being hit especially hard by the rising sea level.

Tidal floods are occurring more frequently, and are becoming a strain in many towns by killing lawns and trees, polluting supplies of fresh water, blocking streets in the middle of sunny afternoons and sometimes stranding entire island communities for hours by covering the roads to the mainland.

“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” Dr. Strauss said in an interview. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”

The new research was led by Robert E. Kopp, an earth scientist at Rutgers University who has won respect from his colleagues by bringing elaborate statistical techniques to bear on longstanding problems, like understanding the history of global sea level.

Scientists already knew that the sea level rose drastically at the end of the last ice age, by almost 400 feet, causing shorelines to retreat by up to 100 miles in places. They also knew that the sea level had basically stabilized, like the rest of the climate, over the past several thousand years, the period when human civilization arose and spread across the earth.

There were small variations of climate and sea level over that period, and several recent papers have tried to clarify these. The new paper confirms a central finding of the earlier research, that the sharp increase of sea level in the 20th century was unprecedented over thousands of years, but does so with a larger data set that may add to the confidence scientists place in the results.

The paper confirms that the ocean is exquisitely sensitive to small variations in the earth’s temperature — a portentous finding, given that human emissions are inducing a large temperature rise.

The researchers found that when the average global temperature fell by a third of a degree Fahrenheit in the Middle Ages, for instance, ice started to build up on land, and the volume of ocean water contracted, causing the average surface of the ocean to fall by about three inches over 400 years. When the climate warmed slightly, that trend reversed.

The good news is once the sea level rises to their lips, the Republicans won't be able to lie about climate change any longer.

“Physics tells us that sea-level change and temperature change should go hand in hand,” Dr. Kopp said. “This new geological record confirms it.”
Continue reading the main story

In the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution took hold, the oceans began to rise, and have gone up by about eight inches since 1880. That may sound small, but the increase has caused extensive erosion worldwide, and governments are spending billions of dollars to try to shore up beaches and other coastal defenses.

Largely because of human emissions, global temperatures have jumped by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. Land ice has started to melt all over the planet, and seawater is expanding as it absorbs heat. The seas are rising at what appears to be an accelerating pace, lately reaching a rate of about a foot per century.

One of the authors of the new paper, Dr. Rahmstorf, had previously published estimates suggesting the seas could rise as much as five or six feet by 2100. But with the improved calculations from the new paper, his latest upper estimate is three to four feet.

That means Dr. Rahmstorf’s estimate is now more consistent with calculations issued in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews and summarizes climate research. The panel found that continued high emissions might produce a sea rise of 1.7 to 3.2 feet over the 21st century.

Dr. Rahmstorf said, however, that the rise would eventually exceed three feet — the only question is how long it will take. The recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris, if acted upon, will bring emissions down enough to slow the rate of sea-level rise in coming centuries, but scientists say the deal was not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

On a geologic time scale, the recent, human-induced planetary warming has been quite sudden, and the huge ice sheets have only just started to respond.

The upper estimate of three to four feet of sea-level rise in the 21st century rules out any large contribution from Antarctica in the near term, but that finding is tentative, given that the ice covering the western part of that continent is already showing signs of instability. And recent studies suggest that the destruction of large parts of the Antarctic ice sheet may have become inevitable, even though that could take hundreds or thousands of years to play out.

“Sea level is going to continue going up for many centuries,” Dr. Rahmstorf said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2016 02:36

CO2 would increase due to burning wood and less plants to recycle the CO2 back into oxygen

The trees store a good amount of CO2 too. So the mere act of cutting them releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning them accelerates it.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Feb 2016 12:33

How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2015?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Feb 2016 18:04

Death Valley comes alive with 'superbloom' of wildflowers

Death Valley National Park, one of the hottest places on Earth, is experiencing a rare occurrence fit for the record books.

Despite its inhospitable climate, the below-sea-level basin in Furnace Creek, California -- about 150 miles west of Las Vegas -- is now teeming with millions of blooming wildflowers.

The desert valley hasn't seen this many blooms since 2005 because the area receives very little rain, with an annual average of 2 inches. Summer temperatures in the valley, which contains the lowest point in the United States, can sizzle to approximately 120 degrees Fahrenheit, with a nighttime low about 90 degrees.

Death Valley's colorful flower blanket began budding due to a perfect combination of the elements: periodic rainfall, solar warmth and reduced winds. El Niño, a climate cycle, has also brought more rain than usual to the valley.

The array of colorful flowers includes the pale white gravel ghost and the staple desert gold, which turns the valley floor into a sea of yellow.

Twitter and Instagram users who have visited Death Valley in recent days have been calling the phenomenon a "superbloom," the term for when a large amount of flowers bloom in an area.

Death Valley is known for being an area of extremes, with its oases filled with tiny fish and its brittle cracked ground surrounded by snow-topped mountains.

The National Park Service said the flowers began blooming a few days ago and said they are expected to stay as long as it rains.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Mar 2016 05:35

So roughly 11-12 year El Nino cycle makes the Death Valley bloom.

disha · Post by **disha** » 09 Mar 2016 08:50

^^ That was known saar., question is what is that news doing in Climate Change: Propaganda thread?

If at all there is a example or thread of smart minds overlooking incontrovertible evidence of climate change to believe in their pet notions - this thread it is, it is and it is.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 Mar 2016 18:30

Climate change is nothing more than a buzz word to milk taxes out of the population with carbon taxes. Now that the real estate ponzi scheme has run amuck in the US in 2008, private banks need a new rent seeking scam. Enter carbon trading where the private banks position themselves as middlemen skimming cream off every transaction.

The global climate has warmed and cooled umpteen times in Earths history including changes of upto 6 degrees in 10 years well before modern man left Africa. If anything, the climate has been incredibly stable during our time on earth. All of this blows a massive hole in the man made climate change nonsense that has been promoted by bankers to skim cream from the productive economy.

Another sinister use of climate change nonsense is to prevent the development of the third world and to use this as a trade barrier.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 11 Mar 2016 19:18

Neshant wrote:Climate change is nothing more than a buzz word to milk taxes out of the population with carbon taxes. Now that the real estate ponzi scheme has run amuck in the US in 2008, private banks need a new rent seeking scam. Enter carbon trading where the private banks position themselves as middlemen skimming cream off every transaction.

The global climate has warmed and cooled umpteen times in Earths history including changes of upto 6 degrees in 10 years well before modern man left Africa. If anything, the climate has been incredibly stable during our time on earth. All of this blows a massive hole in the man made climate change nonsense that has been promoted by bankers to skim cream from the productive economy.

Another sinister use of climate change nonsense is to prevent the development of the third world and to use this as a trade barrier.

I partly agree with your first point and completely agree with your last point. Climate change isn't just a buzz word and there is evidence that mankind is contributing to it. That being said, what is the best way to stabilize it by slowly reducing emissions? The West thinks the bulk of it should come from countries like India and China where per capita emissions are already as low as they can go. No doubt they want to stymie industrialization and remain top dog.

IMO newer fission, fusion, and renewable technologies will win out in the long run along with stabilization in population growth and better urban planning.

The thing to watch out for in the meantime is food production and water availability.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 20 Mar 2016 10:29

Climate change due to CO2 levels is likely real. The solution is a combination of:

- renewable energy
- nuclear energy
- more efficient fossil energy
- new energy efficient technologies across the board for industry, transportation, and buildings (the three main users of energy)

An effective implementation of the above will invalidate the supposed need for CO2 capture and storage (whether from power plants or directly from air). This is a boondoggle of huge proportions.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Mar 2016 20:32

Dire climate study suggests quicker, more catastrophic impact of warming

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Mar 2016 21:05

Rate of carbon emissions put in context

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 22 Mar 2016 22:27

It breached 105 in March in TN.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 23 Mar 2016 06:56

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Apr 2016 01:41

Funny that cartoonist missed this one (the topic first came out in 2013)!!!! Wow

Greenland and Antarctic melting isn’t just raising seas — it’s changing the Earth’s rotation

Before 2000, Earth’s spin axis was drifting toward Canada (left globe), mainly due to the mass deficit in the region following deglaciation of North American ice sheets. JPL researchers calculated the effects of changes in water mass in different regions (shown on center globe) in pulling the direction of drift eastward and speeding the rate (right globe). (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Sophisticated new gravity research suggests that changes in Earth’s climate may actually be having a stunning geophysical effect: slightly moving the location of the planet’s spin axis, or axis of daily rotation. In other words, even as the Earth spins on its axis in a west to east direction, completing a full rotation every 24 hours, that axis itself is also moving. This, in turn, means that the physical North and South poles are actually shifting, with the North Pole now drifting towards the United Kingdom.

And given that much of this is related to the loss of polar ice, a changing climate would appear to be at least partly —although perhaps not wholly — responsible. “If we lose mass from the Greenland ice sheet, we are essentially putting mass elsewhere. And as we redistribute the mass, the spin axis tends to find a new direction. And that’s what we mean by polar motion,” said Surendra Adhikari, a researcher with Caltech and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who conducted the work with his colleague Erik Ivins. The new research appeared Friday in Science Advances.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 Apr 2016 07:46

^^ sounds like a new bogus science is arising now that tracking temperature change to prove global warming has failed.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 12 Apr 2016 16:31

The Volcano Gambit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ?wpmp_tp=1

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 May 2016 21:58

More bogus science:

After the Pacific Ocean swallows villages and five Solomon Islands, a study blames climate change

At six to 10 millimetres a year, sea levels are rising much faster in the nation’s remote Pacific islands than elsewhere, says a new study.

disha · Post by **disha** » 10 May 2016 08:26

Arctic is indeed getting ice-free., but then climate change skeptics will jump from one data point to another as long as the data point supports their skepticism.

Read this article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... yre-wrong/

And for folks suggesting that earth was warmer and more humid., well just look at the desertification of Bengaluru and N. America going from temperate to tropical!! Point is human civilization cannot survive a climate change. Particularly at global levels.

Kannan · Post by **Kannan** » 10 May 2016 09:58

It's a bit asinine to use newspaper articles - third hand information - to quantify science papers. That's about two layers of dumbing down with significant loss of information. Dumping large scales of carbon into the air and resultant greenhouse effect have long been established, but people have always considered that positive/negative feedback cycles i.e clouds forming from increased nucleation sites etc. could intervene.

Regardless of how tempting it is to argue in quick sound bites or how disconnected with the body of science you choose to be (I see some Ted Cruz levels of denial here!), putrid Shanghai air quality and overpopulation aren't heights to aspire to.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2016 20:07

A prof in at Reading Univ, England, has generated models that show that flights from NYC to London would be shorter (<5.5 hrs) and longer (7+hrs) the other way, due to climate change causing the increased speeds of the jet streams. It would add $22 mil per year to an airlines cost and increase bumpy rides by 50%.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2016 20:32

Changing opinions on climate change, from a CNN meteorologist

Although climate change is thought of as simply a political football, it has been a heated topic among meteorologists for years. I, for one, have changed my conclusion over time on whether humans are responsible for the increased heat content of the Earth.

I write this article not to change your mind about global warming; I simply want to show you why I changed mine.

Early in my scientific studies at Nebraska, most believed that humans could never pollute this massive globe enough to make a measurable difference.

As a student, I learned to never exclude any possibility until ultimately that possibility is proven false. It was called skepticism, not denial, and skepticism is a key foundation of the scientific process. In the '80s and '90s there seemed to be many other potential causes of climate change, not only humans.

Volcanoes, solar fluctuations, city heat-islands, concrete production and yes, even the cattle population. The list went on and on and seemed endless. I wondered if all these potential causes were given adequate consideration?

We also thought the ocean might be in more trouble, because it absorbs the CO2 and creates carbonic acid and changes the water's pH.

In 2009 an American Meteorological Society survey showed that only 24% of on-air meteorologists agreed with the statement, "Most of the warming since 1950 is VERY LIKELY human induced." I did not agree because I did not like the term VERY LIKELY. I did not yet have the entire picture. I had not excluded all other possibilities. I wasn't denying human-caused climate change, but I remained skeptical.

2010 was a turning point for me. That year was the hottest year on record, even though there was a La Niña present, a process that should have cooled the planet.

July was the world's hottest month ever, according to NASA, the tenth month in a row to break temperature records globally.

Down went the other potential causes:

There were no volcanoes producing huge amounts of CO2.

The sun was not getting hotter.

Satellite-derived temperature readings ruled out the heat-island effect.

Even "The Pause" (the so-called period post-1998 that showed very little warming of the planet for about 15 years) had been shattered.
They are all now called "zombie theories," long since debunked myths about climate change that skeptics will continually bring up to counter the facts of man-made climate change.

The carbon dioxide data (red curve) measured on Mauna Loa is the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Then in 2013 the CO2 concentration crossed 400 parts per million and I knew the globe was in trouble. No longer was I only concerned with ocean acidification, it seemed the ocean was not capable of absorbing the massive quantities of CO2 that humans were emitting. The plants were not absorbing CO2 fast enough through photosynthesis and converting it to oxygen.

I was no longer a skeptic. Humans were polluting the atmosphere to a point of no return. I had finally excluded all other possibilities. Had I flip-flopped? Well, that is what it would be called in politics. But in science, it is just an evolution of understanding. I concluded that my original theory of "it could be something else" wasn't likely the case.

As I tell my 11-year-old, "It's OK to be wrong as long as you learn from your mistakes."

The records continue to be shattered every year. The 15 hottest years on record have been since 2001 except for 1998. 2016 will likely be the hottest year on record, breaking the old record set in 2015, and the beat goes on. With each year, with each major disaster, it becomes harder to be a skeptic of man-made climate change -- and that is why I am not one.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 26 Aug 2016 13:34

SwamyG wrote:Hallelujah, global warming all absurd. Earth created in 7 days.

It seems like that, doesn't it?

If global warming now called climate change is so much certain, why are the western nations not doing more about it.
http://energyskeptic.com/2016/the-psych ... -peak-oil/

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 26 Aug 2016 14:39

Is that an actual arguement? That it must be false because some countries don't do nothing about it?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Aug 2016 20:19

Gus wrote:Is that an actual arguement? That it must be false because some countries don't do nothing about it?

Pakistan is also not a terrorist nation, because US still gives it aid, China gives it aid, and Saudi gives it aid......India must be wrong, because so many people think Pakistan is not a terrorist nation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Aug 2016 23:20

We need a Global Terror Warming summit!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2016 06:26

Surface water shifting around the Earth

Scientists have used satellite images to study how the water on the Earth's surface has changed over 30 years.

They found that 115,000 sq km (44,000 sq miles) of land is now covered in water and 173,000 sq km (67,000 sq miles) of water has now become land.

The researchers analysed satellite images recorded by Nasa's Landsat satellites, which have observed the Earth for decades.

They were able to monitor changes in the Earth's surface down to a resolution of 30m, which can be seen on the Deltares Aqua Monitor.

The team found that vast areas that were once land are now submerged beneath water, with the largest change occurring in the Tibetan Plateau, where melting glaciers are creating huge new lakes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2016 14:16

North Atlantic 'weather bomb' tremor measured in Japan

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 27 Aug 2016 14:53

Gus wrote:Is that an actual arguement? That it must be false because some countries don't do nothing about it?

Not at all. Just an observation. Why in the world would human brain not act on the available data that proves the climate is changing?

Is it because;
1. Humans have ancient brains
2.Ignorance
3.Environmental numbess
4. Uncertainty
5. Optimism bias
6. confirmation bias
7.Inability to control human behaviour
8.Time
9. perceived inability to do anything no matter what
10. entrenched world view
11. technosalvation

12. Supra-human powers
13. Social norms
14. Network effect
15. existing financial investments
16. entrenched habits
17. conflicting goals, values
18. attachments to current dogmas
19.mistrust
20. perception of inadequate rebates for alteration in behaviour
21. DENIAL

22. Fiscal risk
23. Financial risk
24. Physical risk
25.etc. etc.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 30 Aug 2016 13:15

Please just stop this ridiculousness that you are passing off as something profound.

Countries don't act on climate change because of political reasons. It is not a popular thing to tell your country to spend money for something and other countries don't spend what they should. It is easy for domestic opposition to paint this as sell out and there will be huge political costs. This is exactly what koch brothers and company do by putting out fake studies and funding these lines in media and politicians.

This is not rocket science to figure out.

we are having record breaking heat on the trot and it is annoying to keep arguing senseless arguments.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 01 Sep 2016 22:45

But data does not back up the claims that climate is changing for the worse. And that's the essence of the argument.

Accurate data is available for a very very short period. Data pre 1995 is patchy. Data pre 1962 is almost equivalent to non existent.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2016 10:38

Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2016 10:40

For serious researchers.

A Sharp Increase in
‘Sunny Day’ Flooding

Global warming and rising seas are increasing the amount of tidal flooding on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Flood levels are different from city to city, but the trends are similar

disha · Post by **disha** » 05 Sep 2016 21:09

panduranghari wrote:But data does not back up the claims that climate is changing for the worse. And that's the essence of the argument.

Accurate data is available for a very very short period. Data pre 1995 is patchy. Data pre 1962 is almost equivalent to non existent.

How do you know climate is not changing for the worse?

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 06 Sep 2016 00:15

Gus wrote: This is not rocket science to figure out.

we are having record breaking heat on the trot and it is annoying to keep arguing senseless arguments.

And I'm telling you that it IS rocket science to figure out. We simply do not have the computing resources today to do a full-scale, transient model, time-based simulation of even the radiative forcing component of energy transfer from the sun to the earth, while considering all the path inhomogenities involving dozens of absorbing gases, let alone the entire model consisting of conduction, convection, and radiation, together with mass fluxes and industrial activity, over the entire earth. There has to be a lot of over-simplification of the computer models. I can also tell you the nature of the over-simplification. With radiation, you go from line-by-line to narrow-band or even wide-band models. Narrow-band models have errors of the order of +/-20% (at best). Wide-band models have +/-50% (at best).

When anybody tells me that they did "computer simulation" of some phenomenon, I tend to get extremely cautious about their results. Garbage in, garbage out. So I first want to know all about what kind of garbage they fed the model, what were their assumptions and techniques, where did they get their data from, etc. Otherwise, their results are meaningless to me. There simply cannot be a scientific consensus on such a poorly-understood phenomenon as radiative transfer involving grossly inhomogeneous gas paths.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 06 Sep 2016 00:15

NRao wrote:For serious researchers.

A Sharp Increase in
‘Sunny Day’ Flooding

Global warming and rising seas are increasing the amount of tidal flooding on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Flood levels are different from city to city, but the trends are similar

For serious researchers, eh? Ok all you serious researchers, here's something for you to research.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/warmis ... g-islands/

As you can see, the above article makes the exact contrary claim - Pacific Islands are increasing in area, not decreasing, Kiribati's problem is not global warming, but overcrowding, and mean sea level rise has not accelerated in the past decade or two, or even in the past few years.

So, who is right? This is where the real research comes in, and by research, I don't mean just doing a web search of articles and accepting whatever the most alarmist (or most sanguine) article says as the truth.

http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/data/#.V82LxzU8quB

The above link is to a site which lets you download Global Sea Level (GLOSS) data from hundreds of sites around the world, and in many cases, the data goes back to the late 1800's. IOW, we have more than 150 years' worth of data on tide levels from many sites around the world. I downloaded some of this data for some random sites and did my own regression analysis. Results below:

Green dots - monthly values; red line - yearly averages of monthly values; blue line - linear trend line of monthly values.

Looking at these twelve sites, randomly selected from around the world, I see that there has been steady increase in sea levels all the way from 1880 to 1900 to the present. The maximum rate of increase is around 3 mm/year. The average (not shown in the plots) is around 1.6 mm/year (~6 inches/century). Does anybody here see any "catastrophic acceleration" in this sea level rise in the past decade or two, over and above the steady ~1.6 mm/year rise over the past century and a half, at any location, ranging from Australia to Asia to Europe, to Africa and N. and S. America?

Chennai and Mumbai have steady sea level rises of about 0.2 mm/year and 0.5 mm/year, respectively. 0.5 mm/year translates to 2 inches per century. The claim by global warming alarmists is for four feet of sea level rise per century.

These plots tell me that there is no cause, as yet, to demonize CO2 for sea level rise, and that, in all likelihood, Chennai, Mumbai, and other coastal Indian cities are going to do fine in the next century, and are not going to go underwater. Sinking islands could be due to tectonic activity, erosion, or simple overcrowding. And it seems that the Pacific islands, or even Mauritius, are not only not sinking, but actually expanding in area - by as much as 7% over the past century, in some cases.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 06 Sep 2016 02:44

Here's a couple of plots of tide level data for some other locations in the USA.

Do I have to explain the significance of these plots? Skagway, Alaska, has been seeing steady *decrease* in sea level of nearly 0.75 inches per year. Juneau is at sea level decrease of 0.5 inches per year. We're no longer talking millimeters. With these new locations in the mix, the average sea level rise for the 16 locations I considered is *negative* (-0.6 mm/year). Of course, there are hundreds of other locations, and the average sea level rise world-wide is probably close to the 1.5 mm/year that the article claims (the one I posted in my previous post).

The important point is that these sea level changes are steady over the past 50/ 100/ 150+ years. They could be indicative of global sea level rise, certainly, but what does CO2 have to do with it? Why is this phenomenon, which has been going on for hundreds of years (at the least), suddenly something "catastrophic and doom-inducing?" Some locations see different levels of rise (or actual sea level drops), but this could be due to geology. So what is it with these alarmist reports of disappearing islands, which are conclusively linked to CO2?

There are enough real pollution and ecological problems to tackle, such as plastic in the oceans, ground water depletion or pollution with lead or arsenic, or chemicalized food. Singling out CO2 as *the demon* and expending billions on some misguided attempt to rein it in or in setting up a climate thermostat, is counter-productive.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 06 Sep 2016 03:39

I think there is enough evidence to show that rapid industrialization starting in the 20th century has led to increased warming.

You have areas of cooling and warming together but the average temperature is increasing.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 06 Sep 2016 03:43

panduranghari wrote:
SwamyG wrote:Hallelujah, global warming all absurd. Earth created in 7 days.
It seems like that, doesn't it?

If global warming now called climate change is so much certain, why are the western nations not doing more about it.
http://energyskeptic.com/2016/the-psych ... -peak-oil/

This is the conflict.

How to settle on emission reduction targets w/o giving up economic and military advantage.

The West has to pick up most of the slack while countries like India and China continue industrializing to catch up.

They have the resources and money to do it.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 06 Sep 2016 04:20

RoyG wrote:I think there is enough evidence to show that rapid industrialization starting in the 20th century has led to increased warming.

You have areas of cooling and warming together but the average temperature is increasing.

LOL!! Is this a serious point you're making? Do you understand the issue at hand?

First of all - do you think there is enough evidence, or do you have enough evidence?

But let's let that go, because I agree with you - since the industrial age started, there has been increased warming. Are you surprised by this?

If you have millions of cars, all operating on the "combustion engine" principle, then on top of that you have aircraft and ships and power plants, all operating on the "combustion engine" principle, then you have nuclear power plants, generator sets, all kinds of devices which take the energy stored in fossil fuels or fissile ores and release that energy, what do you think will happen to the temperature around wherever you're doing all this? If, further, all your temperature sensors are near all these sources of heat (as they will be - how many remote temperature sensors do you know of, which are set up in places where nobody lives), then you will definitely see increased temperatures. Yes, industrialization has caused warming.

Now - what does this have to do with the greenhouse effect of CO2? The global warming argument is that CO2 is trapping solar energy, and that this is the cause of the warming. If it is really the heat engines which are causing the warming, then what are you going to gain by sequestering that CO2? Do you understand this difference?

Here's my question. What do you have to say about the claims by all the "consensus scientists" that CO2 is now causing increased sea level, and thus leading to tidal flooding, island submergence, and disappearance of entire island nations? Do you buy this? If so, could you please explain why the sea level data don't show any increased rising effect over the past 150 years? I think the world-wide sea level data effectively reveal the lie about "catastrophic sea level rise." Do you agree with this or not? Or are you going to argue with numerical data, simply because you are of a different opinion?

Notice - I am not saying anything about whether or not CO2 causes warming due to its greenhouse effect. I still think this is possible, and it is certainly the reason why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury. But Venus has some extreme levels of CO2 partial and (much more importantly) total pressure. This high total pressure causes CO2 to behave almost like a liquid, especially close to the surface of Venus, thus greatly increasing convective transport (as opposed to radiative). Plus, there is such a thing as "runaway greenhouse heating," where increasing temperature causes the activation of high-temperature lines in the gas spectrum, which increases the greenhouse effect, etc.

Is all this going to happen on the earth if the CO2 level jumps to (say) 500 or even 800 ppm? That's the point that is highly debatable (not impossible), which is why I don't buy this "100% scientific consensus that CO2 is a demon." My own calculations showed some effect of CO2 greenhouse effect around 800 to 1000 ppm, but I still haven't made the jump to translating that into temperature change. I'll get there one of these days. But 800 ppm is an extreme level, which at the current rate of CO2 increase, is going to take a while.

And again, please provide your comments on this whole catastrophic sea-level rise thingy, which is nowhere to be seen in any of the sea-level data.