US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Gingersnap]

See attachment of Sydney Harbour.

[usawiwasu]

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.

So let's follow another money trend; fossil fuels: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-...0-report-finds

[lestersails]

Whee! Back on the climate change denial ride! There must be at least a dozen or so regulars on CF that continue to spout their crackpot theories every time this is raised. Yawn. One thing about the internet and fora like CF - these people would be hopeless bores at parties and no one would talk to them. At least here they can feel empowered to drone on about their right wing media feeds, their very own "I researched it on the internet" conclusions, and repair their sad inadequacies because they understand as much about AGC as they do about quantum mechanics. Which is exactly zero.
It is interesting in other threads uninformed posters get slapped down pretty quickly. When a knucklehead gives uninformed advice about diesel repair or contract law: Kerpow!
And they (thankfully) crawl back under their rock. In this topic - no such luck.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by TPG

I'd encourage you to check out Judith Curry and her story...

Judith Curry resigned* from her position at Georgia Tech, on January 1, 2017, but continues to write and speak, on climate change issues, and run her blog, Climate Etc.
Climate Etc ➥ https://judithcurry.com/

* Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science ➥ PEOPLE: Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science -- Wednesday, January 4, 2017 -- www.eenews.net

The latest research, Google found, for Judith Curry ➥ https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=...=1&oi=scholart

“Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century” ~ by Sergey Kravtsov, Marcia G. Wyatt, Judith A. Curry, & Anastasios A. Tsonis [2014]
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014GL061416

Judith Curry was among those named in research [1], published in the journal Nature, tracking the academic publications of climate change deniers, and expert scientists, across research, in digital and print media, on climate change.
Others, on the list, included: Richard Lindzen, Jennifer Marohasy, Richard Tol, Bjorn Lomborg, Ian Plimer, and Maurice Newman, as well as Judith Curry.
Curry was ranked #4, among other noted deniers, including Marc Morano (#1), Sen. James Inhofe, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Freeman Dyson, Ross McKitrick, Steven Hayward, John Hinderaker, and Roy Spencer.


[1] “Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians” ~ by Alexander Michael Petersen et al

Abstract:
We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians...

➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

[MicHughV]

where did I read this....

" a butterfly flapping it's wings in the Sahara desert can cause a hurricane in the Caribbean....."

by inference, I could take a leak in the ocean and cause a tsunami in Japan...hmmmm...the mind boggles...

[captlloyd]

Originally Posted by CaptJimFrei

And the downside?

Deeper channels.
Deeper water at my slip.
Less likely to hit a sandbar.

The perfect conservative reply ! Play it backwards and it comes out “ if it is not hurting me then it’s OK and not a problem !

[Curmugeon]

Climate Change and Covid Modelling. Garbage in garbage out.

[Curmugeon]

Climate Change and Covid Modelling. Garbage in garbage out. The earth warms, the earth cools. It has done so for millions of years. Local pollution should be dealt with, but volcanos will erupt and the earth's trajectory around the sun will change, some parts will warm up others will cool down. Let us make sure that our actions are rational and reasonable. Not lead by weak political leaders and strident activists.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Whee! Back on the climate change denial ride! There must be at least a dozen or so regulars on CF that continue to spout their crackpot theories every time this is raised. Yawn. One thing about the internet and fora like CF - these people would be hopeless bores at parties and no one would talk to them.

Indeed. And the new regulars have dropped just about all pretense of having an informed position; they can barely get out a mangled factlet from the canon of long-disproved garbage. (eg Gore, corrupted scientists, etc).

But never mind that. Though they may be trollish or ignorant, they're still "nice", and that's the sort of poster we want on CF! Amirite??

[Stormsignal]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Judith Curry resigned* from her position at Georgia Tech, on January 1, 2017, but continues to write and speak, on climate change issues, and run her blog, Climate Etc.
Climate Etc ➥ https://judithcurry.com/

* Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science ➥ PEOPLE: Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science -- Wednesday, January 4, 2017 -- www.eenews.net

The latest research, Google found, for Judith Curry ➥ https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=...=1&oi=scholart

“Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century” ~ by Sergey Kravtsov, Marcia G. Wyatt, Judith A. Curry, & Anastasios A. Tsonis [2014]
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014GL061416

Judith Curry was among those named in research [1], published in the journal Nature, tracking the academic publications of climate change deniers, and expert scientists, across research, in digital and print media, on climate change.
Others, on the list, included: Richard Lindzen, Jennifer Marohasy, Richard Tol, Bjorn Lomborg, Ian Plimer, and Maurice Newman, as well as Judith Curry.
Curry was ranked #4, among other noted deniers, including Marc Morano (#1), Sen. James Inhofe, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Freeman Dyson, Ross McKitrick, Steven Hayward, John Hinderaker, and Roy Spencer.


[1] “Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians” ~ by Alexander Michael Petersen et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Gordy Gordy Gordy
Judith Curry does NOT deny AGW.
Those that suggest she is a 'denier' reveal their own intellectual bigotry and idiocy.

[ikebartlett]

We are still coming out of an ice age, the ice is still melting. Chicago raised its whole City a century ago because of flooding, we’ll deal with it. If you’re worried about it then don’t buy waterfront property.

[AJ_n_Audrey]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

let's look at this from another angle....

remember Archimedes....the dude that sat in his bathtub and noticed the water rising as he sat down.... ??
So, lets take one supertanker....say 100,000 tons plus displacement..this equates to about 3,2 mil cf of water displaced...
How many ships, cruise liners, etc are on this planet...a lot I'm sure...

2,000 years ago, Archimedes showed that these ships would push aside about two billion tonnes of water. When you spread this over the surface area of all the oceans on Earth (about 360 million square kilometres) you end up with the sea level rising just six millionths of a metre.

Archimedes summation of world shipping is likely out of date.

He doesn't account for the millions of sailboats in Ft.Lauderdale, etc, and the worlds oceans aren't uniform, so it's quite conceivable, that shipping alone is responsible for incremental rise in ocean elevations...

'jes sayin'......

You're not very good at math, are you?

[Hamish_ct]

Let's see the data for the past 500 yrs. These graphs are misleading because they only represent a small data set.

[BelizeRumRunner]

I saw an interview of a CNN journalist who said that after the Trump colussion story ran out of steam the syndicate was going to shift to climate change as the front line story. It looks like the pandemic interfered with those plans as the #1 feature for the last 2+ years and as it looks like it is waning in the public space they are starting to refocus on climate change. Go CNN. Fear sells.

[BelizeRumRunner]

Not sure I see the extrapolation from the sea level rise data to get 10 - 12 inches by 2050. The rise is linear for the last 20 years at 95mm or 3.74 inches. So, extrapolating for 30 more should be (30/20 × 3.74 = 5.6") from current levels. Not taking into account a nuclear winter......or.....just sayin'.