Today we get back to one of the more important topics of today. Climate change. If you believe what is routinely published in the major media, the world is in a climate crisis, with extreme weather being worse than ever before. They claim more people are dying, and more money being spent to repair extreme weather events than ever before. And in the future its going to get worse. The latest claim is a study that purports to show that sea level is going to rise a full foot by 2050.
Let’s parse the claim a little bit. First, they said a study shows this. What study? A study has a premise, an examination of that premise, measurements, and a conclusion. What does this study have? A premise, that sea level will rise by a foot, and a conclusion, yes it will. How is the premise examined? With a computer model. What is a computer model? A computer model is a program written by someone to produce a specific set of results given a specific set of inputs. In this case, the program was written to show that the rate of sea level rise will increase dramatically starting immediately so that we have a foot within 30 years. Does that sound odd. They claim they are studying sea level rise and wrote a program to predict one foot of sea level rise in 30 years. And guess what, it predicted a foot of sea level rise.
Yes, it should sound odd. But its exactly what constitutes almost every study that gets publicized about climate change. They aren’t studies. A study is an exercise in the use of the scientific method. Instead they are an exercise in computer modelling in which they pretend the computer model is the real world. And actually, some computer models are very good. Engineers use computer models to predict stress on large structures such as buildings and dams all the time. And they work well. But in those cases, they understand almost every stress factor involved. And even so, they still sometimes miss a few and buildings and dams fail. But when it comes to the climate and weather, the unknowns are much larger than the knowns. This should be obvious from how the weather forecast looks. They give a percentage chance of something happening. Even as little as a few hours away, they may only predict a 50% chance. This should make it obvious that there are more unknown factors that known factors. But still the so-called climate scientist community claims their models are very good.
What does the real world say about sea level rise? Well, there two sources of information about sea levels. NOAA has a page where the track tide gauges around the world, right here: . Colorado state university has a web page that calculates sea level rise by satellite, here. Now there are problems with each of these. The NOAA page doesn’t take land subsidence into account, and there is substantial subsidence on the East Coast and the South. But the satellite page has larger problems, first from the start it didn’t agree with the NOAA page. And some of the issues that it must resolve to get a good calculation seem to be problematic, eg, the difference in humidity 1 CM above the surface and the actual surface of the water, the fact that the satellites aren’t actually completely in a stable orbit, they are slowly falling to Earth, and the rate they fall is not constant, etc. So the rate of rise on the CSU page is a little higher than the NOAA page. But regardless, neither of these web pages show any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The NOAA page calculates the rise at just under 1 foot per century. The CSU page shows just over 1 foot per century.
So, in order for sea level to rise one foot in 30 years, the rate of sea level rise must, roughly, triple immediately. The prediction that was made can actually be tested. And it will fail. The global warming alarmists have finally made a serious mistake. They made a prediction that can be tested in the near term.
Now, computer models. In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there are a series of what it calls scenarios, or Representative Climate Pathways (RCP). These are predictions of future temperatures based on possible co2 output, with the worst case scenario being 8.5, which requires a massive increase in population and a massive increase in co2 output per capita. The best case scenario was 2.5, with a massive decrease in both. The current temperature is closest to RCP 2.5, while the CO2 output has been closest to the middle two scenarios, RCP 4.5 or RCP 6. Almost all of the papers published predicting climate catastrophe use the worst-case scenario, RCP 8.5. Interesting analysis here. Of course, the one foot in 30 years prediction actually requires events that are much worse than the worst-case scenario.
There is an interesting paper on the subject of modelling here. It says that of all the computer models being officially used to predict the future of climate, only a few are still plausible
What do these remaining plausible scenarios have in common? None of them use the worst-case prediction for CO2 production, RCP 8.5 What do you suppose is required for that 1 foot of sea level rise in 30 years? More CO2 production than is predicted in the worst -case scenario, RCP 8.5. The prediction of one foot is simply impossible. Enough said.
In the last few years, the global warming proponents have become more and more strident. They demand that the US switch from reliable carbon-based electricity production to unreliable wind and solar. They ignore the fact that even a cursory glance at the cost of storing enough electricity in batteries to run any significant part of the grid during a calm, still, night is in the trillions of dollars. And the consequence will be blackouts and brownouts, and eventually the destruction of the US economy as factories fail due to unreliable and extremely expensive power. Or do they ignore them? Where does the money come from for these groups that are spreading the alarm? Well, most of it comes from radical environmental groups. And where do the environmental groups get the money? Well, a quite a bit comes from leftist crackpots such as George Soros. But even more of the money comes from the enemies of the US. That is, Russia and China. 330 million dollars here, a few million, here and here.
This has been known for many years, but needless to say it’s not reported on a lot. Many of us still remember when Greta Thunberg was talking about China. She commented about China once, then shut up about China. Why? Because the environmental activists get lots of money from China. And she loved all that money they gave her to go on sailing trips. So even though China is by far the largest producer of the supposed green house gases, the alarmists only scream about the US. This is because those groups get a lot of funding from China. And since China doesn’t believe in free speech, they can actually punish people for speaking the truth about Chinese energy policies.
That being said, its time for every environmentalist group that is getting money from foreign companies to be required to register as the foreign agent that they are. They clearly don’t have the best interest of the US or its citizens in mind, and the requirement would put that fact on stark display.
By the way, there is an interesting article here: CNN has announced that all of its climate coverage is now bought and paid for by climate extremists. Well, that is not what the article says. It just what the article means. And some people wonder why CNN is no longer relevant.
Follow AFNN
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAz…
Twitter: @AFNNUSA
GETTR: @AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN
3 thoughts on “Climate Change…Again”