Crack scientists say that Greenland and Antarctica are melting down, and pouring massive amounts of water into the sea and drowning the coasts. It must be that sneaky kind of water which has cleverly avoided California.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
Recent Comments
- Laurie on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Joe on “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- Conrad Ziefle on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Ivan G Wainwright on Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Conrad Ziefle on “Climate change is a myth”
- Mike on Too Hot To Live
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on Climate Destroying Shrimp
- Mike on “New computer modeling”
- John on “Climate change is a myth”
If it’s true, as the warmists claim, that global warming causes more snow, then we don’t have to worry about melting ice at the poles and rising sea levels. By the way, as any junior scientist knows, melting sea ice doesn’t increase sea levels (“Archimedes’ principle”). There would have to be a serious meltdown in the Antarctic (home to around 91 percent of the world’s glacial ice) to impact sea levels. But with an average temperature of near minus 40 degrees Celsius in Antarctica, that’s not going to happen.
I think the National Science Foundation needs to hire a junior scientist. For 6-1/2 years they claimed that, “melting sea ice also raises worldwide sea levels, with potentially significant effects for coastal cities and towns.”
However, you’re mistaken in your belief that only Antarctica has enough ice to significantly impact sea levels. There’s plenty of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet to dramatically raise sea levels, were it to melt.
That’s not happening, though: we know that the climate in Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years, but there’s no record of a rise in sea level during the MWP, so it’s clear that not much of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted.
That’s presumably because, as Steve is fond of pointing out, rising temperatures only melt ice if temperatures go above 0°C / 32°F.
NASA says that 97% of Greenland melted last year.
I know I left out the Greenland ice cap. Yes, there is plenty of ice there. And if it were to melt, it would contribute to rising sea levels, but not to the extent of a similar meltdown in Antarctica.
The fact remains: We’re seeing no catastrophic warming at the poles or, for that matter, anywhere else on the planet. And even if we were to see a global warm-up, there’s still not hard empirical evidence to support the theory of human-CO2-induced global warming. Any warming that occurred could just as easily be attributed to natural variations in solar output, oceanic oscillations, and cloud cover, specifically increased cloudiness (a negative feedback) caused by more GCR-triggered nucleation in the atmosphere.
Every IPCC projection of CO2-caused warming is the product of manipulated general circulation models (GCMs). The “coming climate change catastrophe” has been conjured
up digitally.
What about the towns in Kent, in the South of England, that used to be sea towns and are now miles inland? (They’d probably love to be sea towns again, come to think of it.)
Crescent City is rising because it is on the landward side of a subduction zone. This is the case with the California coast north of there, and the coast of Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia. There will be a huge subsidence when that fault lets go.
You might be right; here’s what happened at Seward Alaska:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9455090
However, such land movement has nothing to do with Steve’s point, which I think is that there’s been no detectable acceleration in global rates of sea level rise, which obviously means there’s been no net increase in rate of ice melt, over the period of time during which mankind has been driving up GHG levels significantly.
I would add that groundwater depletion and decreasing rates of water impoundment behind dams should have been expected to cause a modest acceleration in rate of sea-level rise over the last 50 years, so the fact that no such acceleration has occurred would seem to indicate that the contribution from meltwater must be decreasing.
Satellites show no sea level rise anywhere along the west coast.
I should have clarified that increased cloud cover caused by a reduction in solar winds and the penetration of more galactic cosmic rays (see Henrik Svensmark’s theory) would drop temperatures.
Along with the natural “Iris Effect” that Lindzen found!
The permanent drought is ‘masking’ sea level rise, temporarily. Massive tsunami to follow.
There are people who have lived along the coast for 70 years and not noticed any sea level rise. Of course, those people have simply not taken NOAA adjusted data into account. If they only would, they could see the rise.
The water knows that it should go to the South West Pacific and Northern Indian oceans
Jct: Har har har. The twits forget that anyone can measure the sea level anywhere to check their ClimateGate hoax! Har har har. And with all that human-caused global warming, it seems the sea level has dropped from last century! Har har har, har har har. Makes my $100 bet with Greenie Adriana Magnutto (that the man-made global warming rise continues while I show graphs that have the hockey stick blade breaking off in 1998) look better all the time.