US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[GordMay]

In January, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released their annual report on the state of the world’s climate. While 2021 didn't top the list of the planet's hottest years on record (it was the fourth-hottest - roughly 0.84 C above the 20th-century average), it was in fact the warmest year for our oceans. NOAA recorded global land and sea surface temperatures, that were 0.84 C above the 20th century average, while NASA recorded +0.85 C. While 2021 placed in the Top 10, of hottest on record, the fact that it didn't rank higher, wasn't a surprise to climatologists. That's because it was a year with La Niña, a cooling of the Pacific Ocean, that has a cooling effect across parts of the planet.

The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) also released its annual findings, placing 2021 as the fifth warmest, at 1.1-1.2 C above 1850-1900 levels. The agency also noted that the past seven years were the planet's warmest "by a clear margin," with records dating back to 1850.

One of the most dramatic and alarming changes occurred in our oceans. In fact, the ocean heat has been topping its own record annually, for the past seven years, with last year's record set despite the absence of El Niño, which tends to drive up global temperatures.

Our oceans are in a "new normal," concluded a study [1] published in the journal PLOS Climate, that found 2014 was the first year the world's oceans exceeded the 50-per-cent threshold of extreme heat.

These changes, mostly seen in the form of marine heat waves [think of what happened off the coast of B.C. during last summer's heat wave where a billion marine creatures were killed], aren't spread out uniformly across the world's oceans, but are more pronounced in parts of the North Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean.

A study [2], published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, in January, found the heat content in the upper 2,000 metres of our oceans has been steadily increasing since 1958, with a noticeable increase since the 1980s.

As with most aspects of climate change, the people who are seeing that warming the most, are in the Arctic.
According to a report, by the Canadian government, entitled “Canada’s Oceans Now, 2020" [3], all of Canada’s oceans are warming by about 1 C per century. However, some parts of the Arctic Ocean have warmed as much as 1 C per decade over the past 20 years.


[1] “The recent normalization of historical marine heat extremes” ~ by Kisei R. Tanaka , & Kyle S. Van Houtan
➥ https://journals.plos.org/climate/ar...l.pclm.0000007

[2] “Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions” ~ Lijing Cheng et al
➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...376-022-1461-3

[3] “Canada’s Oceans Now, 2020" ➥ https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/pub...pport-eng.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Caleb_Grey

And by putting your #1 source of data on top of a volcano you can sample whatever you want

The is a whole network of CO2 monitoring stations around the world. They all get that same results



https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/

[Montanan]

Copied from GordMay's post today in the CF jokes thread.

Got to keep the subject matter towards nautical relevance.

[jackdale]

Just out

An international team of scientists including Rutgers researchers has found that modern rates of sea level rise began emerging in 1863 as the Industrial Age intensified, coinciding with evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.


The study, which used a global database of sea-level records spanning the last 2,000 years, will help local and regional planners prepare for future sea-level rise. The study appears in the journal Nature Communications.

https://phys.org/news/2022-02-onset-...sea-began.html

A slightly older study

The rate of sea-level rise in the 20th century along much of the U.S. Atlantic coast was the fastest in 2,000 years, and southern New Jersey had the fastest rates, according to a Rutgers-led study.


The global rise in sea-level from melting ice and warming oceans from 1900 to 2000 led to a rate that's more than twice the average for the years 0 to 1800—the most significant change, according to the study in the journal Nature Communications.

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-sea-le...est-years.html

[BugzyCan]

I think a lot of people on this forum need to watch a movie called "Don't look up". It seems to fit most of the replies in here. lol.

[Taichungman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Without human activities the Earth would be cooling. We have messed up natural cycles.

__________________________________________________ __


Well Man may have saved ourselves an IceAge.

[captmikem]

FOLLOW THE (CLIMATE CHANGE) MONEY....

In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex. A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.

Steven Moore
Distinguished Visiting Fellow for Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation.

[GordMay]

I was surprised that no one challenged my [unsupported] statement [post #160] that:
“On average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago.”

Follows, the basis for that statement:

A paper [1], published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, suggests that redistribution of the total ocean mass, from ice mass loss, and land water storage is causing “the ocean bottom to subside elastically.”

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, and the expansion of seawater, as it warms; as well as some other complex interactions* between ocean, land, and ice.

The ocean floor is being deformed, under the weight of ever-increasing water, from melting ice, and redistribution of land water. This unexpected consequence of climate change also appears to be skewing global sea level data, making it appear less severe.


Consequently, measurements, and predictions of sea-level rise, may have been incorrect since 1993, underestimating the growing volume of water in the oceans, due to the receding bottom, according to the 2017 study [1].
What these new findings mean is that the global sea level rise is actually higher, than previously thought.

Satellite assessments of sea-level change, which don't account for a sinking ocean bottom, could be underestimating the amount that seas are rising, by 8 percent, according to the study [1]. The increase in weight of the oceans has caused the sea floor to sink, by about 0.1 mm/year between 1993-2014, or 2.5 mm over the entire period, and this is a trend that will only worsen with time

The research also revealed some other unexpected consequences, as some areas of the sea floor are forced down, others rise. ‘On regional scales, the effect was certainly larger than expected: in the Arctic, which becomes less and less heavy due to mass loss in Greenland and many glaciers, the ocean floor rises at about 1 mm/y.

The accuracy of future sea-level estimates could be notably improved if the sinking of the ocean floor were incorporated into the calculations, "either based on modeled estimates of ocean mass change, as was done in this study, or using more direct observations," the scientists concluded.

Perhaps, almost as telling of the state of wilful ignorance to climate change, and its consequences, is that the unexpected phenomena of our swelling oceans actually contracting the Earth has been known, by scientists, for some time, it is simply previously un-quantified, lesser documented, and less visible symptom of climate change.


[1] “Ocean Bottom Deformation Due To Present-Day Mass Redistribution and Its Impact on Sea Level Observations” ~ by Thomas Frederikse, Riccardo E. M. Riva, & Matt A. King
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017GL075419

* See also:

By modeling the fluxes, in the deep water cycle, over the last 230 million years, study [2] authors found that there were times in Earth's history, when the gargantuan amount of water sinking into the mantle, played an outsize role in sea level; during those times, the deep water cycle alone may have contributed to 430 feet (130 meters) of sea-level loss, thanks to one world-changing event: the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea.
While the deep water cycle can effectively change sea level, over hundreds of millions to billions of years, climate change can change the sea level in zero to 100 years.
For comparison, the present-day sea level rise, associated with climate change is about ±0.1 inches [±3.2 millimeters] a year. The sea level drop associated with the deep water cycle is about 1/10,000 of that.

[2] “Deep Water Cycling and Sea Level Change Since the Breakup of Pangea” ~ by Krister S. Karlsen, Clinton P. Conrad, & Valentina Magni
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2019GC008232

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by captmikem

FOLLOW THE (CLIMATE CHANGE) MONEY....



In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex. A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.



This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.



How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.



Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.



How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.



That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.



Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.



For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.



This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.



But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.



Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.



Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.



Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.



Steven Moore

Distinguished Visiting Fellow for Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation.

Yes global warming is an expensive problem. Money is involved. Not at all surprising the heritage foundation has this view. On the other hand they’re fundraising off of their point of you aren’t aren’t they?

The fact that it’s expensive, and that we have to pay scientists to work on the problem, seems kind of obvious to me. Not sure what your point is here

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Taichungman

__________________________________________________ __


Well Man may have saved ourselves an IceAge.

Another ice age was 10 of thousands of years in the future. Another PETM is just a few generations away.

The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) is a global greenhouse warming event that happened 56 million years ago, causing extinction in the world's oceans and accelerated evolution on the continents. It was caused by release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. When we compare the rate of release of greenhouse gases today to the rate of accumulation during the PETM, we must compare the rates on a common time scale. Projection of modern rates to a PETM time scale is tightly constrained and shows that we are now emitting carbon some 9–10 times faster than during the PETM. If the present trend of increasing carbon emissions continues, we may see PETM-magnitude extinction and accelerated evolution in as few as 140 years or about five human generations.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018PA003379

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Yes global warming is an expensive problem. Money is involved. Not at all surprising the heritage foundation has this view. On the other hand they’re fundraising off of their point of you aren’t aren’t they?

The fact that it’s expensive, and that we have to pay scientists to work on the problem, seems kind of obvious to me. Not sure what your point is here

The capt has absolutely no point. Deniers allege that there's all this money corrupting climate research. Has anyone ever seen the professors' parking lot at a university? Not a whole lot of Beemers, Benzes or other plush rides there. Yet they're wholly blind to all the fossil-fuel money funding the anti-CC disinformation efforts, and the fossil-fuel subsidies that those companies are fighting to hang onto.

[Kd9truck]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Yes global warming is an expensive problem. Money is involved. Not at all surprising the heritage foundation has this view. On the other hand they’re fundraising off of their point of you aren’t aren’t they?

The fact that it’s expensive, and that we have to pay scientists to work on the problem, seems kind of obvious to me. Not sure what your point is here

Money corrupts science ……is the point, an age old “inconvenient truth” and it is 100% accurate reguardless of who reports it.

Fair winds

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by Kd9truck

Money corrupts science ……is the point, an age old “inconvenient truth” and it is 100% accurate reguardless of who reports it.



Fair winds

Yes money does corrupt science. That was lake’s point when he talked about the bogus studies that the oil companies were funding. Same with the bogus studies the cigarette companies funded when they denied that those things were bad for your health. You are absolutely right about this. But you’re looking at it from the wrong end of the binoculars

[bgallinger]

Originally Posted by captmikem

FOLLOW THE (CLIMATE CHANGE) MONEY....

In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex. A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.

Steven Moore
Distinguished Visiting Fellow for Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation.

Thank you. In the end, I hope reality FINALLY sets in.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by bgallinger

Thank you. In the end, I hope reality FINALLY sets in.

You do realize this guy Moore Admits to being both a text cheat and a deadbeat dad. You can look it up. I’m not taking advice from a guy like that