• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The fever pitch of climate alarmism

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,228
Reaction score
14,409
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here in the final few days of the Bonn Climate conference, they seem to be keeping up the fever pitch.
Here is a recent story about sea level rise in Fiji.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/art...epares-the-world-for-a-climate-refugee-crisis
The problem with stories like this are that the sea level in Fiji is not really increasing.
In the Early 90's an Austrian team was put together to monitor the sea level in the Pacific islands.
Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project
Fiji.jpg
Quite a bit of noise, but not a lot (if any) increase.
 

[h=1]Avalanches of global warming alarmism at #COP23[/h]Foreword by Paul Driessen: As the COP23 climate conference wraps up in Bonn, amid even more alarms than usual about Earth’s climate and weather, it is vital that we take a deep breath – and ponder the far less dramatic REALITY that what has been said in Bonn bears virtually no resemblance to what is…
Continue reading →
 

[h=1]Fiji ‘Flooding’ is Fake News from #COP23[/h]Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23 Frank Bainimarama by Nils-Axel Mörner Mr. President, The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding threats to low lying coasts provided…

2 days ago November 13, 2017 in COP conferences, Opinion, Sea level.
 
Here in the final few days of the Bonn Climate conference, they seem to be keeping up the fever pitch.
Here is a recent story about sea level rise in Fiji.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/art...epares-the-world-for-a-climate-refugee-crisis
The problem with stories like this are that the sea level in Fiji is not really increasing.
In the Early 90's an Austrian team was put together to monitor the sea level in the Pacific islands.
Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project
View attachment 67224960
Quite a bit of noise, but not a lot (if any) increase.

Very minimal increase. No way to claim with integrity that it is due to CO2, and I would say it's more likely due to thermal expansion and soot.
 
Oh just great. Now what am I going to do with this. Darn democrats.

ark.jpg

Ark for sale new never used.
 
Here in the final few days of the Bonn Climate conference, they seem to be keeping up the fever pitch.
Here is a recent story about sea level rise in Fiji.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/art...epares-the-world-for-a-climate-refugee-crisis
The problem with stories like this are that the sea level in Fiji is not really increasing.
In the Early 90's an Austrian team was put together to monitor the sea level in the Pacific islands.
Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project
View attachment 67224960
Quite a bit of noise, but not a lot (if any) increase.

Facts and science seem to undermine the AGW religion whenever they are applied.
 
Climate cash
[h=1]Climate Talk Crisis: Where’s the Money?[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t GWPF – UCS Strategy Director Alden Meyer has accused developed countries of “hiding behind the United States”, refusing to provide firm commitments to use taxpayers funds to pay large climate “damages” to poor countries. Breakthrough eludes climate talks, scientists concerned over US role Developing country negotiators lamented the fact that the…
 

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

While none of this is new, I have noticed that the "climate alarmists" have shifted their propaganda agenda from CO2 to the likelihood of our oceans rising high enough to cause widespread destruction of properties on the coast, which are usually the most expensive pieces of land on this planet. Oddly, this has not seemed to alarm the wealthy who own these properties - from billionaires with lavish homes to businesses, like Goldman Sachs' high rise office building, being good examples - so what is the reason behind this changing of priorities?

Has the fear of excess CO2 been proven false by studies that have proven that plants and trees are healthier and grow larger with more CO2 in the atmosphere? When we consider that earth's atmosphere is roughly 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen with the remaining one percent composed of various gases of which CO2 is only .004 percent of the total, it's not surprising to learn that a new scare tactic had to be found to justify the $100 billion dollars per year that our country would be required to pay to the UN to help other countries fight AGW! With our nearly $21 trillion dollar debt, how can we afford it?

*Note: There was probably a time when 97 percent of scientists believed the world was flat, too - until it was proven otherwise!* :shock:

:rantoff:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

While none of this is new, I have noticed that the "climate alarmists" have shifted their propaganda agenda from CO2 to the likelihood of our oceans rising high enough to cause widespread destruction of properties on the coast, which are usually the most expensive pieces of land on this planet. Oddly, this has not seemed to alarm the wealthy who own these properties - from billionaires with lavish homes to businesses, like Goldman Sachs' high rise office building, being good examples - so what is the reason behind this changing of priorities?

Has the fear of excess CO2 been proven false by studies that have proven that plants and trees are healthier and grow larger with more CO2 in the atmosphere? When we consider that earth's atmosphere is roughly 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen with the remaining one percent composed of various gases of which CO2 is only .004 percent of the total, it's not surprising to learn that a new scare tactic had to be found to justify the $100 billion dollars per year that our country would be required to pay to the UN to help other countries fight AGW! With our nearly $21 trillion dollar debt, how can we afford it?

*Note: There was probably a time when 97 percent of scientists believed the world was flat, too - until it was proven otherwise!* :shock:

:rantoff:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

I believe the $100B was a one-time payment, but I could be wrong.
For the rest, they're just trying to find any claim that will make scary headlines.:roll:
 
[h=2]UN Green Climate Fund: good for bankers, bureaucrats, but not so much the poor[/h]
[h=3]UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) — nice rort if you can get it[/h]The UN climate fund was set up in 2010 but has yet to send a single dollar of project money to its star sinking island (which isn’t sinking, but is poor).
The NY Times has a long article describing how billions of dollars is being spent, but somehow it seems to be going to the wrong places. Given the lack of accountability, voters, and elections, who could have seen that coming?
The GCF GONGO is ruled by a Board of 24 people who jetset to Korea, hand out other people’s money, and get applause. In 2012 they were seeking immunity from all laws and taxes. Presumably they succeeded. In 2014, they were caught funding a new coal power station in Indonesia to reduce carbon emissions. I wondered if that was rorting, cronyism, or ‘success’. Greens were not happy. Now we find out that the rest of the money is ending up with the renewables industry, investment bankers, and bureaucrats:
[h=3]U.N. Climate Fund Promised Billions to Poor Nations. For Some, the Wait Is Long.[/h]Transparency, not so good:
The observers took issue, for example, with a proposed project that would hand out $265 million in equity and grants to Geeref Next, a Luxembourg-based investment fund that proposed to finance renewable energy or energy efficiency projects in about 30 countries — with no explicit plan to disclose what those projects would be.
Money was supposed to go to cute local enterprises, but ended up in bank accounts in London:
…why the fund’s finances, set up to back locally owned projects that reach the most vulnerable communities, were going toward private-sector enterprises led by global investment firms — like $110 million in loans and grants for solar projects in Kazakhstan led by London-based United Green Energy and the investment arm of Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund.
Fifty million dollars went on payments to things like a Hydro Dam in Tajikistan. But if the climate models are right, there will be no water in it. (At least we know there’s no risk of that.)
Ninety percent of the funds are not going towards the original mandate:
….less than a tenth of the funding has gone to the kind of projects that make up the fund’s mandate: those owned and controlled by the poorer nations themselves.
How many billion do we need to pay to get someone to answer the phone?
The fund’s secretariat did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Kiribati needs desalination to get safe water. Instead the UN fund gave them half a million to prepare a new application.
Kiribati scored a small victory this year when it qualified for a $586,000 grant to help the country prepare a new application to the fund.
The UN excuse – they are beginners:
“But we just started. There are competing interests — from countries, from the private sector, and we are trying to wade through this maze of conflicting interests,” he said. “We will get there.”
Only seven years in and nothing to show for it. Lucky their world is not facing a crisis.
__________________





 
Jack, you and I, and a few others, know that this AGW scare is nothing but for political power and money. The majority of the population is simply scammed.
 
Jack, you and I, and a few others, know that this AGW scare is nothing but for political power and money. The majority of the population is simply scammed.

For the politicians certainly it's about power & money because everything is for them. For the scientists my guess is that the full range of motivations is in play across that population. For some it's power & money (Michael Mann is Exhibit A). For others it's a need for zealotry in commitment (McKibben) and for others it's just careerism and herd instinct. Finally, room has to be left for the simplest explanation of all: they're just mistaken.
 
For others it's a need for zealotry in commitment (McKibben) and for others it's just careerism and herd instinct. Finally, room has to be left for the simplest explanation of all: they're just mistaken.

I think the only ones who fall into the "mistaken" category are the ones who have incomplete knowledge of the geosciences, possible having an education already set on old knowledge, and those simply don't really study it and fall for the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
 
Here in the final few days of the Bonn Climate conference, they seem to be keeping up the fever pitch.
Here is a recent story about sea level rise in Fiji.
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/art...epares-the-world-for-a-climate-refugee-crisis

Actually, the article is about how Figi is planning on helping climate refugees relocate. It doesn't even mention Figi's actual sea level rise. It does, however, mention some of NASA's numbers.

Global warming has already caused seas to rise an average of nearly 3 inches (7.6 centimeters) since 1992, and triple that in some places, according to NASA.

The problem with stories like this are that the sea level in Fiji is not really increasing.
In the Early 90's an Austrian team was put together to monitor the sea level in the Pacific islands.
Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project
View attachment 67224960
Quite a bit of noise, but not a lot (if any) increase.

Nice... you found a graph of Figi's sea level rise with a scale of meters when the actual rise is measured in millimeters over that time frame. Then you declare "sea level in Fiji is not really increasing" and "not a lot (if any) increase". Luckily for us, the website you found the graph on has the data as well.

If we calculate the annual average sea level for the first full year(1993) of this data we get 1.196 meters. And if we do the same for the last full year(2016) we get 1.257 meters for a difference of .061 meters. Now I realize this is not the best way to determine a trend line but I suspect it is pretty close if not slightly low. So... that's 6.1cm in 23 years. Not too much less than NASA's average number of 7.6cm.

And if we look at one of the islands in that same database that has had a more dramatic increase like Samoa and figure a rise, in the same manner, we get 15.5cm in a year less time.

Just thought people who are not completely brainwashed might want to know longview is misrepresenting the data again.
 

[h=1]Kiribati Climate Plan: More Resorts, More Tourists[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall The President of Kiribati doesn’t want his people to be seen as climate charity cases – instead he wants investment, new tourist resorts to give his people jobs and economic opportunities, to help pay for reclaiming land from the sea like Singapore. As climate change threatens islands, Kiribati’s president plans…
Continue reading →
 
Actually, the article is about how Figi is planning on helping climate refugees relocate. It doesn't even mention Figi's actual sea level rise. It does, however, mention some of NASA's numbers.





Nice... you found a graph of Figi's sea level rise with a scale of meters when the actual rise is measured in millimeters over that time frame. Then you declare "sea level in Fiji is not really increasing" and "not a lot (if any) increase". Luckily for us, the website you found the graph on has the data as well.

If we calculate the annual average sea level for the first full year(1993) of this data we get 1.196 meters. And if we do the same for the last full year(2016) we get 1.257 meters for a difference of .061 meters. Now I realize this is not the best way to determine a trend line but I suspect it is pretty close if not slightly low. So... that's 6.1cm in 23 years. Not too much less than NASA's average number of 7.6cm.

And if we look at one of the islands in that same database that has had a more dramatic increase like Samoa and figure a rise, in the same manner, we get 15.5cm in a year less time.

Just thought people who are not completely brainwashed might want to know longview is misrepresenting the data again.

There is a reason sea levels are averaged over longer than a year.
Known cyclic events like El Nino's can add significant error into single year measurements.
The 60 month average for the 20 years between 1995 and 2015 was 2.78 mm per year slightly below the global average.
You should also note the last column "standard deviation" is between 4 and 5 cm.
The sea level rate of rise in Fiji, look similar to the several long term records from other parts of the world, showing little signs of
acceleration.
 
There is a reason sea levels are averaged over longer than a year.

Yes, and there are reasons for not averaging for longer than a year. Like when you're not trying to hide data.

Known cyclic events like El Nino's can add significant error into single year measurements.

Wrong! Events like an El Nino are not an error. They are known as an anomaly because they actually happen and they actually affect temps. The only time they become an error is when dishonest people cherry-pick them to obtain erroneous trends. Like when denialists claim "no warming since 1998". And it is even more dishonest when they do this while also ignoring the El Nino of 2015/2016.

The 60 month average for the 20 years between 1995 and 2015 was 2.78 mm per year slightly below the global average.

Yes, close to the 2.65 mm per year that I came up with. And I stated that this number was likely slightly low.

You should also note the last column "standard deviation" is between 4 and 5 cm.

No... it was actually between 45 and 55 cm. What's your point? Do you know what the standard deviation is even used for? Looks to me like what the tides would do to a data set of sea levels.

The sea level rate of rise in Fiji, look similar to the several long term records from other parts of the world, showing little signs of
acceleration.

Here we go again with the typical denialist tactic... when proven wrong then just move the goal posts. Neither you nor I said anything about the acceleration of sea level rise. Nice try though.

Now what I want to know is how many times do you have to be shown the dishonesty of these type of arguments before you quit using them?
 
Yes, and there are reasons for not averaging for longer than a year. Like when you're not trying to hide data.



Wrong! Events like an El Nino are not an error. They are known as an anomaly because they actually happen and they actually affect temps. The only time they become an error is when dishonest people cherry-pick them to obtain erroneous trends. Like when denialists claim "no warming since 1998". And it is even more dishonest when they do this while also ignoring the El Nino of 2015/2016.



Yes, close to the 2.65 mm per year that I came up with. And I stated that this number was likely slightly low.



No... it was actually between 45 and 55 cm. What's your point? Do you know what the standard deviation is even used for? Looks to me like what the tides would do to a data set of sea levels.



Here we go again with the typical denialist tactic... when proven wrong then just move the goal posts. Neither you nor I said anything about the acceleration of sea level rise. Nice try though.

Now what I want to know is how many times do you have to be shown the dishonesty of these type of arguments before you quit using them?
Since Fiji is an area know to see a sea level rise from the up to 14 cm bulge of water in the central Pacific El Nino,
selecting an El Nino year as your end year is Cherry picking.
You are right the standard divination is between 45 and 55 cm, sea level is a very noisy environment, we have errors in daily tides of many cm.
The global sea levels have been and will continue to rise, the question becomes has the rate of the rise changed?
The answer to that question remains highly uncertain.
We we can say is that the rate of rise necessary to reach the often quoted 1 meter by 2100 is several times greater that the observed rates,
that do not include subsidence.
 
Since Fiji is an area know to see a sea level rise from the up to 14 cm bulge of water in the central Pacific El Nino,
selecting an El Nino year as your end year is Cherry picking.
You are right the standard divination is between 45 and 55 cm, sea level is a very noisy environment, we have errors in daily tides of many cm.
The global sea levels have been and will continue to rise, the question becomes has the rate of the rise changed?
The answer to that question remains highly uncertain.
We we can say is that the rate of rise necessary to reach the often quoted 1 meter by 2100 is several times greater that the observed rates,
that do not include subsidence.

...the question becomes has the rate of the rise changed?
The answer to that question remains highly uncertain ...​


Here's a chart on acceleration of sea level rise:

2i1l7hk.jpg


Each point on the chart is a comparison of the first half and
second half of the time series up to that time. If you have
ten years of data and you calculate the rate of sea level rise
(slope) for the first five years and compare it to the last five
years and find out that the last five years has a higher rate
you can conclude that there's been acceleration. Do the
same for five years and and one month, five years and two
months and so on. It generates a curve.

In the chart above that curve is shown for the last 20 years.
And what you see is that from the 1997 to 2007 there was
positive acceleration. From 2007 to 2016 acceleration was
negative. Since 2016 the rate is positive once again.

The Red Blue and Green arrows mark those dates that Colorado
University published various transparent articles on their website
that illustrate how they would like to see the data progress.
Why hasn't acceleration been detected?
A pothole on the way to higher seas.
And finally Imminent Detection of Acceleration of sea level.
 
...the question becomes has the rate of the rise changed?
The answer to that question remains highly uncertain ...​


Here's a chart on acceleration of sea level rise:


Each point on the chart is a comparison of the first half and
second half of the time series up to that time. If you have
ten years of data and you calculate the rate of sea level rise
(slope) for the first five years and compare it to the last five
years and find out that the last five years has a higher rate
you can conclude that there's been acceleration. Do the
same for five years and and one month, five years and two
months and so on. It generates a curve.

In the chart above that curve is shown for the last 20 years.
And what you see is that from the 1997 to 2007 there was
positive acceleration. From 2007 to 2016 acceleration was
negative. Since 2016 the rate is positive once again.

The Red Blue and Green arrows mark those dates that Colorado
University published various transparent articles on their website
that illustrate how they would like to see the data progress.
Why hasn't acceleration been detected?
A pothole on the way to higher seas.
And finally Imminent Detection of Acceleration of sea level.
I like the graph, all data is good.
I have real questions if the satellites with their 30 mm accuracy, and questionable reference capability, can accurately record a change of few 1/10th of a mm a year?
The errors accumulate!
Let's take for example a 1 square kilometer section of ocean of know latitude and longitude.
The satellite takes a snapshot every 10 days, but the tides are not on 10 day cycles, so the phase of the tide will be different
every time the satellite passes.
For a given fixed tide station the daily tidal prediction is usually off by 10 to 20 cm, because so many factors affect the tide.
If the error for a fixed station is so great, it is unlikely our predictions for the open ocean would be better.
 
I like the graph, all data is good.
I have real questions if the satellites with their 30 mm accuracy, and questionable reference capability, can accurately record a change of few 1/10th of a mm a year?
The errors accumulate!
Let's take for example a 1 square kilometer section of ocean of know latitude and longitude.
The satellite takes a snapshot every 10 days, but the tides are not on 10 day cycles, so the phase of the tide will be different
every time the satellite passes.
For a given fixed tide station the daily tidal prediction is usually off by 10 to 20 cm, because so many factors affect the tide.
If the error for a fixed station is so great, it is unlikely our predictions for the open ocean would be better.

This is an example of reporting science and one that has plagued the co2-Methane-climate debate from the start. Data would be shown to provide evidence for a political argument. The proof was then shown to be less certain than the politicians had (been) led to believe. Having gone out on an edge the data was improved to show veracity of the theory. This back and forth has not been helpful, sowing distrust of researchers with obvious conflict of interest. This does not mean that we are not in a pickle. It just means we need more robust data.
 
This is an example of reporting science and one that has plagued the co2-Methane-climate debate from the start. Data would be shown to provide evidence for a political argument. The proof was then shown to be less certain than the politicians had (been) led to believe. Having gone out on an edge the data was improved to show veracity of the theory. This back and forth has not been helpful, sowing distrust of researchers with obvious conflict of interest. This does not mean that we are not in a pickle. It just means we need more robust data.
In this case I do not think they have established the veracity of the theory.
Actual sea level rise looks almost unrelated to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Consider for sea level for a fixed tide station like Battery Park,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/stationhome.html?id=8518750
Predicted vs the measured can be off by 15 cm at any given time, but the error can get much larger.
Wind speed, direction, duration, and other weather events can add or subtract from the predictions.
I agree we need more robust data, but we also need a way to parse out the data we already have.
 
Back
Top Bottom