ClimateGate busts things wide open

[Doodoo]

If all the Ice Caps were to melt the sea levels would increase 216 feet

This is just a fact issued by the people at the National Geograhic Society. Its is a calculation. Nothing said about "Harry and Leonardo and Meghan", Nothing about "Instead, they cry"
Nothing about "Like socialism's failures, this mmcc hoopla has become cultish." Its just a calculation
No need to panic over it BUT the sea levels are increasing

[Doodoo]

. . .
If all the Ice Caps were to melt the sea levels would increase 216 feet
More alarmism attributable to failed efforts using faulty data that more and more of the public chooses to ignore.

Just a calculated fact from National Geographic. Nothing alarmimg aout a calculation

[FrazeeDK]

216 feet?? We're safe here in Udon!!

[Lone Star]

216 feet?? We're safe here in Udon!!

Yes, that's very true for a lot of places; and it's good to know. 55555

Not to mention the theory of displacement. It varies some with salt water, but when ice melts incrementally over time, the result is negligible and becomes part of the natural water cycle. It would only have devastating effects if a single cataclysmic event occurred that created an immediate melting of all the ice, and there's no indication that is happening. If that happened, whatever event caused such an ice-melting phenomenon would probably wipe out a good bit of life before the water ever started rising to that level to affect life on earth.

[Lone Star]

.

St. Greta of Thunberg parading around in Iowa City, Iowa.

St. Greta:

“As we all know, the U.N. climate action summit was a failure.”

[Barney]

Have any of scientific brainiac's performed a calculation of how much the sea floor is being filled in by the unseen undersea volcanic activity?
Perhaps this lava outpouring, if any, is causing displacement and flooding the shore lines, and not the melting ice sheets.
Just coming from another perspective.

[tamada]

Have any of scientific brainiac's performed a calculation of how much the sea floor is being filled in by the unseen undersea volcanic activity?
Perhaps this lava outpouring, if any, is causing displacement and flooding the shore lines, and not the melting ice sheets.
Just coming from another perspective.

Struggling to see it from your perspective. I guess I need another pint or two.

[Barney]

Have any of scientific brainiac's performed a calculation of how much the sea floor is being filled in by the unseen undersea volcanic activity?
Perhaps this lava outpouring, if any, is causing displacement and flooding the shore lines, and not the melting ice sheets.
Just coming from another perspective.

Struggling to see it from your perspective. I guess I need another pint or two.

Buy another full pint then throw some sand in and tell me if it overflows
Easy

[tamada]

Sorry mate, at the prices for a pint here in Udon, I sure as ---- aint gonna be throwing some sand in it.

Here's some stuff anyway. Looks like the CO2 that subsea volcanoes produce may be more the issue than any huge amount of sea level increasing lava.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environ ... ge-n301746

[Lone Star]

Very interesting revelation, but I'm not surprised.

[Udon Map]

Very interesting revelation, but I'm not surprised.

I checked only one alleged fact, -- the first one, about the statement from the head of the WMO. On September 12th, he did issue a statement saying that hysteria was not warranted. But it was nothing like the context in this film made it appear. It appears that deniers tried to use his statement to show that he wasn't concerned about climate change; but nothing could be further from the truth.

Media reports based on a recent interview that I gave in Finland have attracted attention, on the grounds that I purportedly questioned the international focus on the need for robust climate action. This is a selective interpretation of my words and my longstanding views.
...

In my interview, I made clear that a science-based approach underpins climate action, and that our best science shows that the climate is changing, driven in large part by human action.
...

We have seen recording-breaking temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations, the smallest amount of sea ice in the Arctic, melting mountain glaciers and rising sea levels.

It is highly important that we rein in greenhouse gas emissions, notably from energy production, industry and transport. This is critical if we are to mitigate climate change and meet the targets set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

To stop a global temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the level of ambition needs to be tripled. And to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees, it needs to be multiplied by five.

In fact, as the WMO's most recent report makes clear, the climate is changing for the worse, and at an increasing rate. Some section summaries from the report:

"CO2 EMISSIONS AND GHG CONCENTRATIONS INCREASED"

"GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CONTINUES TO RISE, 2015–2019 IS SET TO BE WARMEST FIVE-YEAR PERIOD"

"SEA-LEVEL RISE IS ACCELERATING"

"MORE HEAT BEING TRAPPED IN THE OCEAN "

"SEAWATER IS BECOMING MORE ACID"

"SEA-ICE EXTENT CONTINUES TO DECREASE"

"ICE SHEETS CONTINUE LOSING MASS"

"GLACIERS UNDERGO RECORD MASS LOSS"

"SPRING SNOW COVER DECREASED"

"THE LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE OF HEATWAVES HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BY ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE"

"RECENT RISE IN FOOD INSECURITY AND GLOBAL HUNGER DUE TO DROUGHT IMPACT"

"THE OVERALL RISK OF CLIMATE-RELATED ILLNESS OR DEATH HAS INCREASED"

"MARINE LIFE AND ECOSYSTEMS ARE BEING THREATENED BY HIGHER SEASURFACE TEMPERATURES"

"GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IS FALLING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES DUE TO INCREASING TEMPERATURES"

So before anyone starts suggesting that the World Meteorological Organization (a U.N. Agency) thinks that the danger from climate change is overblown, take a look at what it's actually saying.

Here's a link to the whole report, "The Global Climate in 2015–2019"
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=9936

[papafarang]

The funny one is people go on how CO2 is good for the planet. Ok it's good for plants..some of them, it's also good for weeds and in turn great for pests. Combine CO2 with temperature rises, increased/ decreased rainfall And we can enjoy a world packed with inorganic furtilizers, pesticides and herbicides. So let me debunk this simply. Plants need nutrients, it don't matter how much CO2 you give a plant, to Get a better result from any plant you also need more water as being a larger plant means it will need more water, and more NPK because it's going to be a much larger plant. For farmers working with poor quality soils in developing countries this will become a real problem . Seems deniers either are ignorant of these facts or just grasping at straws. If climate change activists has got it wrong, the only down side is they will accidentally create a cleaner environment

[joudon]

Perhaps if 'we' the general public were permitted to hear equally from the scientists on both sides of the debate, then a balanced judgement could be made. When one sides' views are 'blanked' by the MSM, then to my mind it STINKS!!!!!

[Lone Star]

.

Now is the time for believers to finally earn their spurs. The alarmism has reached fever pitch proportions.

Believers have the grand opportunity to show us -- in a specific and measurable way -- how they plan to slow, stop and reverse this climate change phenomenon.

Tell us how -- specifically -- they plan to do it, and tell us the expected specific calculated result of the effort. Believers claim to be good at data and calculations, so this should be right up their alley. Easy, right?

1. Believers claim to know the cause. Need evidence, not guesses, no predictions. No shots in the dark.

2. Believers claim to know how to solve it. Show us. It should be as easy as explaining the water cycle or synthesis if it's science. No shots in the dark.

3. Believers want to seize our assets to pay for it. What are we specifically financing? How do believers arrive at the amount owed? What is going to be specifically done with every coin?

The explanations should be such that people of modest education and reasonable analytical skills are able to undersrand it. If the common man can't be convinced, then believers don't know their gospel well enough to communicate it and convert the skeptics.

[Lone Star]

Perhaps if 'we' the general public were permitted to hear equally from the scientists on both sides of the debate, then a balanced judgement could be made. When one sides' views are 'blanked' by the MSM, then to my mind it STINKS!!!!!

Nailed it.

Some major media sources in the US have announced that they will not have skeptics on their programming. Of course, these news networks cater to LIBs. Silencing opposing views is part of the scam.

[noosard]

Here is a interesting article

Joe Hildebrand on why the climate kids can’t win
Amid all the outrage on both sides of the Greta Thunberg debate, there is one question that remains unanswered, writes Joe Hildebrand.
ANALYSIS

In the year 2000, more than 200,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to support Indigenous reconciliation and demand the Howard government apologise to the Stolen Generations.

I was one of them.

It felt like a great movement, both symbolically and literally, an unstoppable force.

Meanwhile, a top Labor strategist, widely regarded as the best political mind in the country, looked out upon the masses and said: “I don’t see a single vote in it.”

History proved him correct. John Howard went on to win two thumping election victories in 2001 and 2004, both on far bigger margins than in 1998.

Then Kevin Rudd was elected and the Apology was finally delivered — it was powerful and passionate and again I was proud — yet over the years that followed, the gap refused to close. The real change didn’t co

Kevin Rudd delivered a historic apology to the Aboriginal people for injustices committed over two centuries of white settlement in February, 2008. Picture: AFP/Greg Wood.
Kevin Rudd delivered a historic apology to the Aboriginal people for injustices committed over two centuries of white settlement in February, 2008. Picture: AFP/Greg Wood.Source:AFP

This brings us to Greta Thunberg, the electric sceptic who has electrified both the left and right like a 50 amp fuse.

Amid all the breathless outrage and hyperbole on both sides, there is one question that remains unasked and unanswered: What exactly is she trying to achieve?

Of course we know that Greta wants the world to stop warming and world leaders to make that happen. But how? And who? And by what means does she plan to persuade those she has denounced as self-serving money-grubbing environmental vandals to act?

Perhaps somewhere in the millions of words that have been written and spoken and chanted and shouted by her and her schoolyard climate strikers this question has been answered but for the life of me I haven’t seen it.

All I have heard is a lot of talk about how passionate the kids are and how wonderful that is. But passion on its own achieves nothing without a practical plan to back it up.

Romeo and Juliet were passionate and look what happened to them.

Young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, 16, has mobilised the masses, starting a conversation about climate change. But what exactly is she trying to achieve? Picture: Nicholas Kamm/AFP.
Young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, 16, has mobilised the masses, starting a conversation about climate change. But what exactly is she trying to achieve? Picture: Nicholas Kamm/AFP.Source:AFP

The hard truth is that unless it is directed towards an effective and realistic goal, passion is pointless. And that is the most baffling thing about the whole climate strike phenomenon.

Firstly, whose minds are they trying to change? The hundreds of thousands in the crowds? The evil capitalists they shout about? The so-called climate sceptics in the commentariat? The general public?

It’s a fair bet that the marching crowds are already on side and it’s a fair bet that the soulless capo-fascists are unlikely to have a Damascene conversion at the hands of some angry adolescents.

Meanwhile, the climate sceptics are having a field day skewering the inevitable wild claims that emerge from any teenage gathering. Just ask a 17-year-old how many roots he pulled at Schoolies.

And as for the general public, they’re already on board. Poll after poll has shown an overwhelming majority of people believe in man-made climate change and think something should be done about it. Their only question is what that something is and how much it will cost them.

Of course pensioners want their grandkids to have a good life but they also need to pay their power bills. Of course workers in mining towns would rather not scoop coal every day but they need to put food on the table.

So again: Who is the audience? Where are the votes? What is the plan?

Greta’s already won the public over, with numerous polls showing the majority of the general public believe in man-made climate change. Picture: Nicholas Kamm/AFP.
Greta’s already won the public over, with numerous polls showing the majority of the general public believe in man-made climate change. Picture: Nicholas Kamm/AFP.Source:AFP

Beyond impassioned pleas for change, and directing anger and frustration at the “higher power” that be, what is the plan? Picture: AP/Jason DeCrow
Beyond impassioned pleas for change, and directing anger and frustration at the “higher power” that be, what is the plan? Picture: AP/Jason DeCrowSource:AP

The reason I want to know is because like most people, I believe in climate change. I believe humans are causing it and I believe something needs to be done about it.

This is because I know that there are people smarter than me who have done the research and the vast majority of them have concluded that this is a problem we need to fix.

But I also know that unless Doogie Howser M.D. was a documentary series, not one of those people is a teenager whose sole qualification in global warming is knowing how to skip class on a sunny afternoon.

And all of my climate change-believing friends are equally perplexed: How on earth did a rational debate once led by professors in lab coats get hijacked by hysterical teenagers in hoodies? And how do they imagine the conversation will go?

“Hey presidents and prime ministers! You know how you ignored that massive body of evidence all those scientists gave you? Well we hate you so shut up and change your mind!”

If anything, the history of the climate debate has demonstrated time and again that the more extreme and apocalyptic the claims the more damage it does to the cause because when they don’t materialise, it gives sceptics bucketloads of ammunition to argue that the rest of the data must be bogus too.

Young people like Greta Thunberg are taking part in the climate change conversation, but not doing anything to move it forward. A once intelligent debate is now being led by hysterical teenagers in hoodies, writes Joe Hildebrand. Picture: Eric Baradat/AFP.
Young people like Greta Thunberg are taking part in the climate change conversation, but not doing anything to move it forward. A once intelligent debate is now being led by hysterical teenagers in hoodies, writes Joe Hildebrand. Picture: Eric Baradat/AFP.Source:AFP

Just look at how successfully the right has used Tim Flannery’s wildly inaccurate predictions to rubbish the whole climate argument. Or how celebrities and political leaders alike were busted by real scientists for using old photos and discredited claims about “the lungs of the world” in their frenzied rush to jump on the “Amazon is burning” bandwagon. Hasn’t that gone quiet.

The fact is that managing climate change is incredibly difficult and complex and the only certainty is that anyone who thinks it can be fixed by a hashtag or placard is 100 per cent wrong. A close friend of mine works for the UN helping to set up emissions trading and carbon abatement schemes for developing countries. He is one of the best people in the world at doing what he does and even he struggles to explain what that is in language an educated adult could understand, let alone an anxious adolescent.

And a US researcher recently crunched the numbers and found that in some cases, the recycling process could actually produce more carbon dioxide than just throwing recyclable materials in landfill. It is a difficult day for simple solutions when even recycling turns out to be bad for the environment.

And so, again, tackling climate change is complicated and often counterintuitive.

Indeed, one could argue that the most useful climate change contribution of the past few weeks didn’t come from Greta Thunberg, but from Scott Morrison — the hard left’s quintessential ‘climate bogeyman’.



Delivering a carefully crafted backhanded compliment, Morrison gave a landmark speech in the US last week that lavished praise on China for being an economic powerhouse that ought to be treated by the global community with the respect it deserved.

It was insulting, ScoMo suggested with a barely suppressed wink, that a nation with the second biggest economy in the world and all but certain to become the supreme global superpower, should still be classified by global institutions as a “developing” country.

In diplomatic speak, this was basically the world’s biggest in-joke. Because even as China has been proudly proclaiming its military, strategic and economic supremacy — suppressing rebellion in Hong Kong, declaring the recapture of Taiwan and literally increasing its land mass in the South China Sea — it still claims that it is just a poor country struggling to make its way.

And the world officially floats along on this little fig leaf. Because China is considered a “developing” country it gets more leeway on its emissions reduction plans than “developed” countries like the US and Australia. And the kicker is that China is the biggest carbon dioxide producer in the world, emitting almost 30 per cent of the world’s fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions. This compares to a bit over 13 per cent from the US — the second highest — and a bit over 1 per cent from Australia. More worryingly, China’s emissions rose by more than 2 per cent last year, on top of another rise the year before.

Despite China being considered a “developing” country, it gets more leeway on its emissions reduction plans than “developed” countries like the US and Australia. Picture: Saul Loeb/AFP.
Despite China being considered a “developing” country, it gets more leeway on its emissions reduction plans than “developed” countries like the US and Australia. Picture: Saul Loeb/AFP.Source:AFP

Even if you think Australia is doing sweet FA on climate change, if ScoMo succeeded in his bid to make China meet tougher targets it would probably do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than any other single initiative on the planet.

But even so, it’s not so simple. China produces the world’s greatest volume of CO2 because it’s the world’s biggest country whose economy has been exploding. Its per capita output is far lower than Australia and the US and it is doing more to tackle climate change than either nation.

In other words, China is at once both the problem and the solution. In a perfect illustration of this, the global monitoring program Climate Action Tracker noted China is simultaneously the world’s largest consumer of coal and the world’s largest producer of solar technology. It described it as “almost paradoxical”.

Now I’m not sure if any of the millions of kids on the streets came up with a fix for this paradox but if they did, they really should tell somebody.

And so the question remains: What do the climate change strikers actually think they are changing? Unfortunately, it certainly isn’t the climate and it probably isn’t anything at all. But still, I guess it’s better than doing drugs.

The good news is that older and wiser heads have been working on these questions for years, sensible scientists and pragmatic policymakers who are constantly racking their brains and pressing the flesh to come up with workable solutions to a problem that is as excruciating as it is existential.

And they are probably the sort of people who stayed in school.

Joe Hildebrand co-hosts Studio 10, 8.30am weekdays, on Network Ten. Continue the conversation @Joe_Hildebrand

[TJ]

I have wondered whether those that believe that global warming is man-made know that there have been long periods of global warming and cooling in the past. Are they aware that past warming periods had higher temperatures than the current warming period? Here is an illustrative graph.

[Lone Star]

I have wondered whether those that believe that global warming is man-made know that there have been long periods of global warming and cooling in the past. Are they aware that past warming periods had higher temperatures than the current warming period? Here is an illustrative graph.

Yes, that is one of two problems that believers have.

The other problem is that data indicates spikes in temperature that occurred without spikes in CO2. It's difficult to claim that CO2 is the cause if it's not rising as temperatures rise.

[TJ]

I have wondered whether those that believe that global warming is man-made know that there have been long periods of global warming and cooling in the past. Are they aware that past warming periods had higher temperatures than the current warming period? Here is an illustrative graph.

Yes, that is one of two problems that believers have.

The other problem is that data indicates spikes in temperature that occurred without spikes in CO2. It's difficult to claim that CO2 is the cause if it's not rising as temperatures rise.

The AGW believers are very closed-mouth. They never mention that for the last twelve year (Or is it thirteen now?) there has been pause in global warming. And they never mention that the very questionable data that produced the "hockey stick" chart has never been made public for examination and analysis. And on and on.

[TJ]

Just finished reading an article which is mostly about various cycles which may or may not predict climate change. IMO it does not much advance the views either of AGW believers or skeptics. It does IMO show that serious climate research, analysis, theorizing and publication have been done and is in progress. The first third(?) is too technical for me and I suggest skipping to the discussions of the many cycles. It is somewhat educational for us novices.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/natu ... le-part-a/