US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[geoleo]

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.

Too bad article did not mention "Solyndra" where Democrat insiders stole couple billion US tax dollars thu Obama to Fight Climate Change. lol

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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



https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/

HHHHHHMMMMMMMMM why arent these spread evenly?? dont see any in Atlantic or china??

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Too bad article did not mention "Solyndra" where Democrat insiders stole couple billion US tax dollars thu Obama to Fight Climate Change. lol

If anyone has an ax to grind and conflicts of interest, combined with a less than tangential relationship with the truth it is moore

https://archives.cjr.org/united_stat..._city_star.php

[captmikem]

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

oK, I will explain it to you simple like, influential people, and people in power can make BILLIONS of dollars exploiting fears. Al Gore is the perfect example.

If you do not understand this, well send your money to good old Al, he can use it for another mansion or another Jet.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by captmikem

oK, I will explain it to you simple like, influential people, and people in power can make BILLIONS of dollars exploiting fears. Al Gore is the perfect example.



If you do not understand this, well send your money to good old Al, he can use it for another mansion or another Jet.

The right both fundraises and takes millions in lobbyist money from folks on the anti-climate change side — Big corporations that are polluting the environment. Scientist have made a living, a career, out of being shills for big oil. Same thing happened with big tobacco and big sugar.

I’m not talking about some research scientist at a university. I’m talking about guys who write these papers and it says Big Oil right on their business card.

Again, you are correct that there are grifters involved here who have a financial stake in clouding the truth.

But for some reason, you are blind to whom they might be.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

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

What.. nothing about the bogus studies that Big Pharma has funded over the decades..

[Van Der Beek]

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.

+1


This isn't so much about the environment any more public(another misnomer by the way) health would be about health. This is more about power and dominion.

All things government involves itself with comes down to power and dominion. No exceptions, there is nothing it would do that would disempower it and empower the people.

As for those who are outside it's a lucrative business and massive money grab, where they also get to guilt trip people into becoming consumers of their product.

[N Coast Murray]

Uh oh...

I've noticed a number of people on my ignore list from the Canadian Covid thread are starting to post here, which means, this thread will probably devolve into a stinking mess and be closed.

Hope I'm wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Too bad article did not mention "Solyndra" where Democrat insiders stole couple billion US tax dollars thu Obama to Fight Climate Change. lol

Solyndra commited fraud. And even including money lost to Solyndra, that investment program netted a profit to the US government. But truth is irrelevant to some.

Originally Posted by captmikem

oK, I will explain it to you simple like, influential people, and people in power can make BILLIONS of dollars exploiting fears. Al Gore is the perfect example.

Another classic lie. Gore is conventionally wealthy (stocks, directorships, etc). His fees etc from any climate-related speaking go into his nonprofit.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

Uh oh...

I've noticed a number of people on my ignore list from the Canadian Covid thread are starting to post here, which means, this thread will probably devolve into a stinking mess and be closed.

Hope I'm wrong.

You're not. Seems all the hot-button non-cruising/sailing threads are now trollfarms. You can repeat the craziest sh!t, as long as you're "nice".

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

+1


This isn't so much about the environment any more public(another misnomer by the way) health would be about health. This is more about power and dominion.

All things government involves itself with comes down to power and dominion. No exceptions, there is nothing it would do that would disempower it and empower the people.

As for those who are outside it's a lucrative business and massive money grab, where they also get to guilt trip people into becoming consumers of their product.

Nicely put that "guilt trip" phrase.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Montanan

That is consistent with the trend in the NOAA illustration attached below wherein the shaded red areas have the highest seal level rise being much larger than the global mean.

If some parts of the ocean are rising faster than others, it's not the ocean that is rising.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by boatman61

What.. nothing about the bogus studies that Big Pharma has funded over the decades..

That’s a good example. It’s hard to do peer reviewed health related bogus studies. But I do think they covered up ill affects of some of their drugs long after they became aware of them. Statin drugs and opioids come to mind. Very similar to the cigarette industry.

I just don’t see why it’s so hard to recognize who has the real financial stake in this.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by 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

Geez Mr Gord you have outdid yourself in Bafflig news! So the melting ice caps now weigh more as liquid and are compressing the sea floor causing it to sink(or stink)? Doesnt this violate Einsteins law of gravitational pull by the moonies? Idont think they considered the factor of the Moons tidal pull. After all Gravity can be neither seen,smelled or sold on the bitcoin market. yet.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Geez Mr Gord you have outdid yourself in Bafflig news! So the melting ice caps now weigh more as liquid and are compressing the sea floor causing it to sink(or stink)? Doesnt this violate Einsteins law of gravitational pull by the moonies? Idont think they considered the factor of the Moons tidal pull. After all Gravity can be neither seen,smelled or sold on the bitcoin market. yet.

I reread this crapola and for Gords fear to be correct then the weight of the ice caps did not 'count' as pressure on the sea floor because they were 'floating'..but once melted they accrued a gravitational downward force that pushed the sea floor toward the center of the earth which caused a bulge somwhere in Lord gords forehead.