New Video : NASA Recycling 60 Year Old Climate Superstition

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to New Video : NASA Recycling 60 Year Old Climate Superstition

  1. Robert Gipson says:

    Therein lies a curiosity. Tony has shown in other videos how seal level rise has been starkly, unswervingly linear since at least 1850, 2.84 mm per year. If the arctic ice pack thickness has varied cyclically from decade-to-decade, with marked amplitude as indicated above, it appears that arctic ice melting (and hence CO2 increase) has little if nothing to do with sea level rise. Ergo some as-yet unidentified factor must underlie sea level rise; one that is changing linearly. That is, is polar ice thickness drives sea level, we would see dramatic cyclical increases and decreases in sea level from decade to decade. One possibility that comes to mind is tectonic sea floor spreading, which I first learned about as an undergrad in 1973. It proceeds pretty much like clockwork.

    • Martin says:

      Arctic *sea* ice melting has nothing to do with sea level rise (salinity effect is negligible).
      Correlation of sea level with land ice mass changes would be interesting.

      Ice mass loss is estimated to account for some 1.85±0.13 mm for 2012–2016
      Should be detectable in tide gauges. Perhaps.

      • Robert Gipson says:

        Oh…gotta love that precision…”1.85±0.13 mm for 2012–2016.”

        Here’s more “precision” from the same author, Jonathan L Bamber back in 2009 (excerpt):

        “We obtain a value for the global, eustatic sea-level rise contribution of about 3.3 meters, with important regional variations. The maximum increase is concentrated along the Pacific and Atlantic seaboard of the United States, where the value is about 25% greater than the global mean, even for the case of a partial collapse.” (end quote)

        Fascinating that (as Bamber claims) the global sea-level rise will be concentrated at the east and west coasts of the USA; apparently Mexico, Central America and South America–not to mention Asia and Europe–will by comparison be spared.
        Fascinating that the USA will be selectively *targeted* for more drastic sea level rise. How coincidental, given that it is USA citizens (more than their neighbors) that will need to be brow-beaten into paying the lion’s share of the CO2 tax.

        So…I guess the ocean off the California coast will be 4 feet higher than the ocean off the Mexican coast. Hmm…will it be a gradual, upward-sloping permanent wall of water extending out from the border? Or perhaps a perpendicular wall of water, ya’ know, kinda like when Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea? I for one can’t wait to witness this anthropogenic miracle.

    • D. Boss says:

      Sorry, but Arctic ice melting does NOT increase sea levels! If you place an ice cube in a glass of water, and let it melt – does the water level increase? No, but do try it and see for yourself. (arctic ice floats on the ocean)

      Only land based ice melt adds to mean sea level! (so only glaciers and the Antarctic ice matters to sea level)

      Also don’t forget about other relevant facts such as how much water evaporates globally: (17 million cubic meters per second)(pretty much 4.5 billion US gallons/sec)(my point is there are myriad factors with huge numbers affecting all aspects of “climate” – and no silly models with a gazillion fudge factors can render anything close to reality at this time)

      I would agree that changes in ocean bed or bottom topography is a highly likely reason for changes in mean sea level or at least be the first thing to check before ascribing sea level change to some global climate change nonsense. Also dry land rising or falling is a likely cause to consider before climate gibberish.

      Another thing – nearly 75% of the solar energy influx (insolation) is absorbed by the earth’s oceans – one humongous heat sink if you consider water is just about the highest heat capacity of common elements or compounds….

      One could argue the planet’s “blanket” is not primarily the atmosphere, but in reality the vast quantity of liquid water it holds.

      Or put another way, climate is not governed by a so called “greenhouse” in the air, but rather by a humongous “hot water bottle” in the ocean heat reservoir. the latter outweighs the former by orders of magnitude.

      The main thing to worry about with the atmosphere is the albido. How much insolation is reflected back to space. (again the small changes in albido outweigh any greenhouse gas response by at least an order of magnitude)

      Watch the cloud cover movie here and tell yourself honestly if the reflectivity is at 30% or is it 25% or sometimes 40%???

      Tony is correct, NASA et al are doing propaganda with the stupid claims they make. Heck I bet Tony could dig into the Cloud Fraction database and find some interesting information/trends.

  2. Lasse says:

    Linear change can be periodically:
    Atlantic as measured in New York 50 Years average:

    Note a similarity to the ice situation(and temperature?)

  3. Susan Cooper says:

    Actually I love how wrong NOAA got the Hurricane predictions this year.

    Too bad there aren’t awards for wrong weather predictions…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.