Climate alarmists put forth scary scenarios saying that carbon dioxide induced global warming is causing unprecedented and accelerating sea level rise which will drown our coastal cities and wipe out South Pacific Islands.
Measuring sea level is more complicated than pounding a stake into a beach. Sea level and the rate of rise or fall are subject to daily and seasonal variations, storm surges, and effects from decadal to multi-decadal oscillations such as El Niño. For instance, the west-blowing equatorial trade winds can pile up an extra foot of water in the western Pacific compared to the eastern Pacific. There are also tectonic events: is the ocean rising or is the land sinking? Pumping groundwater causes soil compaction and hence sinking land. Another complication: isostatic rebound of North America is tipping the northeast coast into the sea. (For a more detailed explanation of glacial isostacy see here.)
Once again, the Obama administration has stealthily released its spring regulatory agenda, which includes the costliest regulation in history, as millions of Americans hit the road to celebrate Memorial Day weekend.
Obama’s Spring 2015 Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan has more than 2,300 regulations in various stages of planning and lays out the administration’s regulatory plans for the coming months. The White House, however, has developed a reputation for releasing their regulatory agendas on the eve of major holidays when many Americans are in the midst of travelling.
Researchers from the University of Bristol (UOB) announced Thursday that glaciers in the Antarctic peninsula are starting to thaw much faster than expected, dumping millions of gallons of freshwater into the oceans, which they blame on global warming. But according to an expert in the field of polar observations, those conclusions appear to be "greatly overestimated."
Dr. Andrew Shepherd, an IPCC author who works at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, said the UOB study used calculations that appeared to have overlooked shifts in snowfall, noting that the "new estimates of ice loss computed (from the thinning of the ice) are far too high, because the glaciers in this sector just haven't speeded up that much."
India has told a high-level energy meeting here that it will not be fair to expect it to move away from coal to meet energy requirements of millions of Indians, underscoring that coal will continue to remain the "mainstay" of its energy needs for the "foreseeable future." --Press Trust of India, 22 May 2015
Just as in all other countries, including the developed world, coal will continue to remain the mainstay of our energy related needs for the foreseeable future. In all fairness, it would not be correct to say or to expect India to move away from coal when we are at the cusp of our developmental journey. -- Indian Energy Minister Piyush Goyal, Press Trust of India, 22 May 2015
President Obama delivered the commencement address this week at the Coast Guard Academy, in New London, Conn. He told the graduating cadets that they faced a challenge before them that, “perhaps more than any other, would shape their entire careers.”
Was it to protect the homeland from what the president aptly characterized as “the grave threat of terrorism”?
Scientists working for the federal government want the right to speak out about their research. They object to being “muzzled” by the requirement, currently in place, that they seek permission before talking about their findings.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which represents 15,000 scientists and engineers, intends to make this a bargaining issue in upcoming contract negotiations.
To ease the way, the union says its members will make clear they are only speaking for themselves, and not the government, if this right is granted. Yet that borders on delusional thinking.
The good news for global-warming alarmists is that they can pretty much be guaranteed that there will always be something happening somewhere in the world to get alarmed about. “It has been a really bad week for the ice shelves of the quickly warming Antarctic peninsula,” the Washington Post’s resident alarmist Chris Mooney wrote a week ago. In a few years, a very warm summer will see the Larsen B ice shelf shatter into thousands of smaller icebergs, a researcher told him. However, Mooney did not report that the same team that had detected Antarctic warming also said that the warming had not been reproduced by climate models. “Until the past warming can be properly simulated, there is little basis for prediction that rapid warming will continue in future,” according to the British Antarctic Survey.
President Obama’s assertion in his commencement address to cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy that the rise of ISIS in Syria and Boko Haram in Nigeria, and the brutality of both, is somehow linked to climate change shows just how dangerously detached from reality U.S. foreign policy has become.
For those who wondered why upwards of two hundred thousand have died in Syria, Boko Haram abducts Christian schoolgirls, and ISIS beheads and burns people alive in its reign of terror, the president placed a major part of the blame on fossil fuels and your SUV.
I understand climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world, yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram. It's now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.
Statement by Marc Morano, Climate Depot Publisher: “It is hard to even take today’s speech by Obama seriously on either a logical, scientific or political level. The speech was so farcical in its claims that it hardly merits a response. It is obvious that the climate establishment is seeking new talking points on ‘global warming’ to change the subject from the simple fact that global temperatures are not cooperating with their claims.
See: Obama Readies U.S. Troops For The War On ‘Global Warming’
If any Americans actually believe the climate claims linking ‘global warming’ to a rise in conflicts, no amount of evidence, data, logic or scientific studies will likely persuade them. But given the high profile nature of the comments, a rebuttal to the President’s climate claims is necessary.
Subglacial topography and bathymetry map of the West Antarctic Rift System and Transantarctic Mountains.And so it begins: the ordained and predictable global warming hype has shifted into high gear in preparation for the United Nations Climate Change Summit (Paris, Nov. 30-Dec. 11, 2015). As this fervent process ramps up over the next five months, advocates of the man-made global warming theory hope to accomplish the following: flood the media with supposedly consensus, pro-global warming scientific studies, lay the groundwork for a world carbon tax, and most importantly, engage global warming skeptics in a monumental climate science war.
The first battle in this climate science war concerns the cause of accelerated melting and partial collapse of Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf. Predictably, global warming advocates claim that humans are to blame, citing a recent research study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
U.S. Republican Jeb Bush said on Wednesday that the Earth’s climate is changing but that scientific research does not clearly show how much of the change is due to humans and how much is from natural causes. While President Barack Obama and many scientists believe humans are largely to blame for climate change, Bush said the degree of human responsibility is uncertain. The former Florida governor challenged Obama’s determination earlier in the day that climate change is now a threat to U.S. national security. --Reuters, 21 May 2015
The problem is climate change has been co-opted by the hard-core left and if you don’t march to their beat perfectly then you’re a denier. --Jeb Bush, The Daily Signal, 21 May 2015
Currently the average price of regular gasoline in California is $3.81 per gallon. That is $1.11 above the national average ($2.70). What are the reasons for this 40 percent higher price? There’s a witch’s brew of factors, but in a nutshell it boils down to the fact that California’s Democrat politicians have taken on the responsibility of saving the planet. That, of course, is a quixotic endeavor. Californians are wasting billions of dollars and getting nothing in return.
Individually California consumers spend about sixteen dollars more than necessary each time they fill their gas tanks or about $600 a year on average. Collectively California consumers purchase 14 billion gallons of gasoline each year. In other words, we’re spending $15 billion a year more than what we would if gasoline prices equaled the national average. The benefit-cost ratio of those expenditures is as close to zero as you can get.