Climate Change(d)?

[southernhybrid]

Finally, thankfully, the global warming craze is dying out. To paraphrase Monty Python, the climate parrot may still be nailed to its perch at the recent COP summit in Belém, Brazil – or at Harvard and on CNN – but elsewhere it’s dead. It’s gone to meet its maker, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. By failing to pledge a cut in fossil fuels, COP achieved less than nothing, the venue caught fire, the air-conditioning malfunctioned – and delegates were told on arrival not to flush toilet paper. Bill Gates’s recent apologia, in which he conceded that global warming “will not lead to humanity’s demise,” after he closed the policy and advocacy office of his climate philanthropy group is just the latest nail in the coffin. In October, the Net Zero Banking Alliance shut down after JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs led a stampede of other banks out the door. Shell and BP have returned to being oil companies, to the delight of their shareholders. Ford is about to cease production of electric pickups that nobody wants. Hundreds of other companies are dropping their climate targets. Australia has backed out of hosting next year’s climate conference. According to analysis by the Washington Post, it is not just Republicans who have given up on climate change: the Democratic party has stopped talking about it, hardly mentioning it during Kamala Harris’s campaign for president last year. The topic has dropped to the bottom half of a table of 23 concerns among Swedish youths. Even the European Parliament has voted to exempt many companies from reporting rules that require them to state how they are helping fight climate change. Switching to renewable energy made no difference, literally. Here’s the data: the world added 9,000 terawatt-hours per year of energy consumption from wind and solar in the past decade, but 13,000 from fossil fuels. Not that wind and solar save much carbon dioxide anyway, their machinery being made with coal and their intermittency being backed up by fossil fuels. Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, these two “unreliables” still provide just 6 percent of the world’s energy. Their low-density, high-cost, intermittent power output is of no use to data centers or electric grids, let alone transport and heating

The Spectator, The end of the climate cult

The jig is up.

The Spectator? Seriously. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that Twiz would use a rag that is known for far right bias to try and convince us that climate change isn't real.

https://adfontesmedia.com/american-spectator-bias-and-reliability/

Overview​

Ad Fontes Media rates The American Spectator in the Hyper-Partisan Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Problematic in terms of reliability. The American Spectator is an online magazine focusing on news and politics. Founded in 1967 as a monthly print magazine, it has featured writings by authors such as Thomas Sowell and Tom Wolfe. The print magazine now publishes twice per year.

Overall Score​

The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for The American Spectator according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 17.77

Bias: 22.67

Panels of analysts from Ad Fontes Media regularly review representative sample content to rate it for reliability and bias. Each panel of analysts comprises one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one center-leaning analyst.

The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score.

To determine sample content’s bias score, we consider its language, its political position, and how it compares to other reporting or analysis from other sources on the same topic. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the content’s overall bias score.

Oh and Boris Johnson was a part of the British version for awhile. So yeah. Whatever that piece of shit says must be true. /s

 

[TSwizzle]

The Spectator? Seriously. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that Twiz would use a rag that is known for far right bias to try and convince us that climate change isn't real.
Oh and Boris Johnson was a part of the British version for awhile. So yeah. Whatever that piece of shit says must be true. /s

I doubt you read it but is there anything specific in the Spectator article that you want to comment on?

 

[Elixir]

... I should not have to keep repeating that climate changes naturally and is variable

Yes! You are asking the right questions and, if you study diligently, will be on a path to understanding.

but here I am again having to repeat it.

No. The rest of us are well past this. Repeat it to yourself if you need to.

Climate variations can be periodic, quasi-periodic, or episodic. The variations can take place over a wide range of time periods. Here's a brief refresher:

• 24-hour period. A locale is warmer when facing the sun, and cooler at night. You already know that much. The variation is roughly 9°C in Santa Monica.
• 12-month period. A latitude is warmer when the noon-time Sun passes overhead. The variations are additive, so a winter day may often be warmer than a summer night! This variation is about 10°C in Santa Monica.
• El Niño–Southern Oscillation (quasi-periodic; 2 - 7 years) caused by shifts in ocean current patterns. Temperature variations are highly variable but 3°C is typical. Lately La Niñas are often warmer than the El Niños of yesteryear. See if you can guess why before reading ahead.
• Sunspot cycle (quasi-periodic, typ. 11 years) Temperature variation about 0.1°C.
• There are many other quasi-periodic and transitory events that can affect temperature. As just one example, expect a temporary lowering of temperature by about 1°C once a century due to volcanic eruption.
• 26,000-year period. The slow wobble of Earth's rotational axis.
• 41,000-year period. The variation in the Earth's axial tilt.
• 100,000-year (quasi-)period. The change in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit.
• The preceding three Milankovitch cycles interact (precession has little effect without eccentricity; whether axial tilt cools or warms on average depends on the other parameters). Below is a graph comparing temperature with the July insolation at 65° N as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles. Correlation is very good; temperature variations are often about 5°C. But note that Milankovitch predicts a cooling which is NOT occurring. Instead temperatures are likely to soon surpass the maximum during the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago -- apparently the warmest Earth has been for a million years.
• Positive feedback loops. As we see next, events can affect glaciation and the Earth's albedo. As ice advances, albedo cools the Earth further. As ice retreats, loss of albedo warms the Earth. This is why loss of glaciers and sea ice is troubling.
• Miscellaneous geological events. We'll mention just the closure of the Panama isthmus which MIGHT have happened about 3 million years ago. This isthmus blocked the flow of water between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, strengthening the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Gulf Stream. The strengthened currents delivered more warm, moist water to the northern latitudes, which was eventually deposited as snow at high latitudes, forming glaciers, and leading to the start of the Northern Hemisphere glaciation period.
• Biological events. About 49 million years ago, vast blooms of the Azolla fern on the Arctic Ocean consumed enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide and caused global temperatures to drop; this led to the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet.
• While the Azola event reduced atmospheric CO2 and caused cooling, Human Technology has increased atmospheric CO2 which leads to warming. I'm confident that you understand at lest this much.
• The "Little Ice Age" a few centuries ago arose due to a number of factors, of which one might be reforestation (trapping CO2) in the wake of epidemics in North America.

This should be enough to get you started, @TSwizzle .

View attachment 52913

Trumpers think Milankovitch cycles are what libs ride as they clog up the roadways.
Swiz is still convinced that his ignorance beats any fancy lib’rul bicycle.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I doubt you read it but is there anything specific in the Spectator article that you want to comment on?

The article has not a single citation to a scientific journal article about climate change. It is a political opinion piece not a refutation of the research.

We understand you have an issue with the alarmist politicians and activists out there, like Gore and Thunberg, but they are not climate scientists.

Much of what it talks about is likely true, the politics of it all, but that’s not a reason to denounce the actual scientific results. If you want to take issue with those you will have to address the science directly and use citations and/or refutations based on scientific analysis of real data. You can’t rely on “sure Jan” and “rapture-like cult” to persuade anybody’s opinion of the science.

 

[TSwizzle]

The article has not a single citation to a scientific journal article about climate change. It is a political opinion piece not a refutation of the research.

True, it is not a scientific paper. It is a commentary about climate alarmism and the ruinous effects it has had on the economy and energy policies, particularly the UK.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The article has not a single citation to a scientific journal article about climate change. It is a political opinion piece not a refutation of the research.

True, it is not a scientific paper. It is a commentary about climate alarmism and the ruinous effects it has had on the economy and energy policies, particularly the UK.

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Finally, thankfully, the global warming craze is dying out. To paraphrase Monty Python, the climate parrot may still be nailed to its perch at the recent COP summit in Belém, Brazil – or at Harvard and on CNN – but elsewhere it’s dead. It’s gone to meet its maker, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. By failing to pledge a cut in fossil fuels, COP achieved less than nothing, the venue caught fire, the air-conditioning malfunctioned – and delegates were told on arrival not to flush toilet paper. Bill Gates’s recent apologia, in which he conceded that global warming “will not lead to humanity’s demise,” after he closed the policy and advocacy office of his climate philanthropy group is just the latest nail in the coffin. In October, the Net Zero Banking Alliance shut down after JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs led a stampede of other banks out the door. Shell and BP have returned to being oil companies, to the delight of their shareholders. Ford is about to cease production of electric pickups that nobody wants. Hundreds of other companies are dropping their climate targets. Australia has backed out of hosting next year’s climate conference. According to analysis by the Washington Post, it is not just Republicans who have given up on climate change: the Democratic party has stopped talking about it, hardly mentioning it during Kamala Harris’s campaign for president last year. The topic has dropped to the bottom half of a table of 23 concerns among Swedish youths. Even the European Parliament has voted to exempt many companies from reporting rules that require them to state how they are helping fight climate change. Switching to renewable energy made no difference, literally. Here’s the data: the world added 9,000 terawatt-hours per year of energy consumption from wind and solar in the past decade, but 13,000 from fossil fuels. Not that wind and solar save much carbon dioxide anyway, their machinery being made with coal and their intermittency being backed up by fossil fuels. Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, these two “unreliables” still provide just 6 percent of the world’s energy. Their low-density, high-cost, intermittent power output is of no use to data centers or electric grids, let alone transport and heating

The Spectator, The end of the climate cult

The jig is up.

Sure, Jan.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The article has not a single citation to a scientific journal article about climate change. It is a political opinion piece not a refutation of the research.

True, it is not a scientific paper. It is a commentary about climate alarmism and the ruinous effects it has had on the economy and energy policies, particularly the UK.

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

He'll claim just the idea that any is human-caused is "alarmism".

 

[steve_bank]

The Santa Monica Pier is threatened by sea level rise, and the city is developing plans to address it. Potential threats include permanent beach erosion and flooding from storms, which could damage the pier, infrastructure, and surrounding areas. Studies are being conducted to find solutions, which may include adapting infrastructure, raising structures like the pier's breakwater, or considering managed retreat for certain assets.
Potential threats

Erosion: Sea level rise will move the high tide line further inland, permanently eroding beaches and threatening coastal assets like the pier and the highway.
Storm damage: Higher water levels will increase the impact of major storms, potentially causing significant damage to the pier and other coastal structures.
Infrastructure damage: The pier's breakwater may lose its protective capacity over time, and other infrastructure like roads and bike paths are at risk of damage or destruction.

Adaptation and mitigation

Infrastructure studies: The city is initiating studies for preserving the pier and protecting PCH, which may involve raising structures.
Climate Action Plan: The City's Climate Action & Adaptation Plan will develop measures to adapt to risks to buildings and infrastructure.
Creative solutions: Officials are looking for creative, cost-effective solutions, including when to "retreat gracefully" rather than continually rebuilding.

Visualizing sea-level rise in Santa Monica, California

News from USGS Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center

www.usgs.gov

Visitors on Santa Monica Pier look through “Owls,” virtual-reality viewers that show how the beach beside the pier will look when future storms and sea-level rise raise water levels. Photo courtesy of USC Sea Grant.

Visitors to the Santa Monica Pier in southern California can now see what the beach might look like when future storms and sea-level rise raise water levels. Two virtual-reality viewers, named “Owls” for their distinctive appearance, show the projected extent of flooding by a big storm at high tide, by sea-level rise, and by both together. The projections come from the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS). The viewers also show how communities can adapt to sea-level rise through nature-based coastal-planning projects, such as enhanced dunes. The City of Santa Monica developed the Owls (one ADA-accessible) in partnership with the USGS, Owlized, and the USC Sea Grant program. The Owls will operate from November 7, 2016, to January 7, 2017; a public celebration was held November 16 to coincide with “King” high tides.

View more photographs on our Facebook page (USGS Coastal and Ocean Science).

Visit the interactive virtual Owl viewer!

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle

You are like a 3rd rate magic act trying to fool Penn & Teller. Your act is simple and transparent.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"Why are you strawmanning me when I make baseless mischaracterizations of scientists wahhhh" - Tswizzle

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle

Major west coast cities and ports are having to deal with rsiing se levels and worsening storms.

What natural cause is there for rising sea levels?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Sure, Jan.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Sure, Jan.

Oh you think I can't keep this up?

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle

Major west coast cities and ports are having to deal with rsiing se levels and worsening storms.

What natural cause is there for rising sea levels?

Cone on TSwizzle, why are se levels rising?

You can run but you can't hide.

You are probably burning up the net lookng for an answer that denies human causes, but not finding any.

 

[steve_bank]

At first there was denial of the fact that oceans were warming and ocean levels were rjsnig.

Then there were claims the measurements were wrong.

In the face of unassailable measurements it became yes oceans are warming and rising, but effects are inconsequential.

Now globally coastal ports and cities are having to deal with rising sea levels.

Given the fact that sea levels are rising with consequences in the now, the question is the cause.

For the climate denier the question is what is a natural cause for sea level warming and risng sea levels.

Unless you deny sea levels are rising there is a natural cause or a human cause.

Miami is not moving roads, but rather elevating them to combat sea-level rise and flooding through large-scale infrastructure projects. The city is investing hundreds of millions of dollars to raise roads, install powerful new pumps, and upgrade storm drainage systems to manage both rainfall and rising groundwater. This process has faced challenges, including lawsuits over potential damage to properties and disputes with residents, notes WUSF and the Miami Herald.

Yes, some low-lying islands are already going underwater and many more are at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. Nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, and the Maldives are among the most vulnerable, facing threats like frequent flooding, saltwater intrusion, and eventual submersion. This crisis not only threatens the land itself but also challenges the sovereignty and cultural identity of island nations.

Simple question, if it is not human what is the natural cause?

Whatsamatta TSwsizzle, cat got your tongue?

Are sea levels rising or are they not? Once you acknowledge sea level rise you have to say the cause, so you ignore the question.

It is not just millions, it is shaping up to bell ions in the near term.

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle is boxed into a corner with no way out.

If he acknowledges that there is sea rise and it is costing money today his whole anti climate science posture falls apart.

Must be embarrassing.

He is not in Ca, he is in The Great State Of Denial.

 

[TSwizzle]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

 

[steve_bank]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

See post 3986.

Why are sea levels rising?

If I were in Key West I'd be soundinjg the alarm. And I'd be trying to unload any property I owned as fast as I could on some sucker.

Yes, Key West is projected to be significantly impacted by rising sea levels, with some areas facing inundation in the coming decades, though not the entire city disappearing soon. While the city will likely not be entirely underwater for many decades, it will experience more frequent and severe flooding, potentially making parts uninhabitable by 2045 and only accessible by boat someday.

No, it is unlikely that New York City will be completely underwater, but parts of it are at high risk of being submerged due to rising sea levels and will experience more frequent and severe flooding. Coastal areas like Lower Manhattan, Battery Park City, and neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island are particularly vulnerable. Projections suggest significant sea level rise, with some areas potentially seeing as much as a 6.5-foot rise by the end of the century.

NYC has had unprecedented flooding. One area in Queens I believe was deemed uninhabitable. Inflatable plugs are beng considered to seal subway tunnels during floods.

One of the more recent floods did serious damage to NYC subways, salt water is corrosive.

Giant inflatable plug could protect subways from floodwaters

www.nbcnews.com

A giant inflatable plug that can be filled with 35,000 gallons of water at a moment’s notice could have prevented some of the flooding that crippled New York City’s transit in the wake of Sandy, according to an expert working on the technology.

So yes TSwizzle, the alarm bells are sounding, and not just with 'alarmists'.

 

[pood]

View attachment 52925

Sure, Jan.

I think “Quiet, piggy” works better.