Friday Funny – the horror of rising sea levels in context

As many know, Mr. Obama made some wild claims about climate at the recent U.S. Coast Guard Academy commencement.

For example:

The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean.  Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches.  That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.

Rick McKee shares this epic cartoon on the WUWT Facebook page:


Further reading:

Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?

Some pushback against Obama’s ridiculous climate remarks at the Coast Guard commencement

247 thoughts on “Friday Funny – the horror of rising sea levels in context

  1. Better than using the U.S. military to supply arms to ISIS, which is what they have been doing, by (a) “accidentally” dropping them in the wrong place, and (b) supplying them to “moderate” anti-Assad forces.

    • Why suggest conspiracy when cock up is more likely?
      Situation Normal AFU is a military phase.

      • There is strong likelihood of both elements being in play; a conspiracy to prepare opposition groups in Syria for war against the sovereign government backfired and we got the ISIS situation (a.k.a. the big cock up). I recall the drumbeat for war on Syria and the Assad regime by, especially, Obama and Cameron a couple of years ago, and how it was stopped in the last minute by Putins initiative to cooperate to dismantle Syrias chemical weapons arsenal.
        I also remember the Libyan war and the arming of the Khadaffi opposition. That NATO nations (among them perhaps especially Turkey) wanted to facilitate the transport of “used” weapons clandestinely from Libya to Syria to strengthen the Assad opposition is not unlikely to me, considering that almost all Western leaders expressed their wish to strengthen the al-Assad opposition (among them the IS/ISIS/ISIL) at that time. The potential political will to look the other way was certainly there.
        As much as it is likely that the Russians have been providing people in Eastern Ukraine with weapons and logistics, I find it very likely that NATO and US supplied the Syrian opposition with weapons and logistics, at least in 2012/2013. I don’t really see the controversy in this statement?

      • AFU or conspiracy, stupid or evil whats the difference if the results are the same?
        We may want to quibble about how to cast blame, but for ISIS there is no difference. In either case they get the same results.

      • I agree that the “who’s to blame” part of it isn’t the most important in itself. It is, however, essential to understand how a process has evolved, political or climatological or otherwise, in order for us to correctly approach and deal with any crisis, be it a real (ISIS) or a perceived one (CAGW). Barack Obama is, as it seems, not the right person to deal with either problem.

      • Cock-up seems highly improbable. The USAF has access to very high navigation technology, and very high level surveillance technology. If dropping supplies in the wrong place, several times, is a series of cock-ups, then it is incompetence as culpable as conspiracy.
        And everyone and his cat knows that the “moderate” anti-Assad groups are in cahoots as well as Syria; that the al-Nusrah man you train and arm today can easily be a platoon leader in ISIS tomorrow. It is difficult to believe that even Americans cannot understand this.

      • Problem is … Sea Level Rise like Temperature is based on “Models” not actual measurements…
        Part of the Models which introduce Bias are bounceback of the continents post Glacier, sublimation estimates, and water behind dams in included in “Sea Level Rise” Models…
        The actual Volume of the Ocean is constantly changing… making “Sea Level” a bit tricky to model… Tide Gages in Geologically Stable areas make a good reference point, most of the Google “Worlds Oldest Tide Gages” show little Sea Level Rise.. so I’m not worried.. think I can outrun the deluge and could care less if some normally shifting barrier island continues to shift..

    • (c) supplying arms to the Iraqi army, who then cut and run and ditch everything they can for ISIS to recover.

      • Yet another brilliant plan.
        1. Disband the Iraqi army. Toss all the officers, NCOs, and trained, experienced, men out into the cold with no means of support.
        2. Set up a new army from people who have no interest in supporting the puppet regime, and are just in it to get a regular pay packet. (Regular pay is hard to get in a country you have just destroyed.)
        3. Be astonished when some of the guys you threw out into the cold join ISIS and apply their skills.
        4. Be even more astonished when the time servers in your new army show moderated enthusiasm for the actual fighting business.
        As I said befor, it’s either culpable conspiracy, or equally culpable incompetence.

    • i don’t recall our SoS being involved in the Status of Forces ‘negotiations’ in 2011. Why would our highest diplomat not be involved there?
      It would seem to me that the biggest single contributor to the ISIS war machine (equipment) is the US government. Does that qualify as a contribution to a religious organization from the Clinton Foundation?
      At this point, what difference does it make?

  2. The actual sea level rise is 3mm per year and is not significantly changing. Even if it were to become four feet in 100 years, that would still be less than the UK tidal range. Since most sea defences are built much higher than the tidal range to accommodate waves, I don’t see that being a major problem.

    • It is 1.8mm per year. The rest is ‘adjustments’ for what it ‘would be if land wasn’t rising’.
      You may see straight past that argument and ask if both are rising and the net difference is 1.8mm, why pretend it is 3.0?
      There is no good answer to that question.

  3. Two competing hypothesis for current climate change:
    – CO2 back radiation (positive correlation)
    – Svensmark’s solar cycles magnetic modulation of the galactic cosmic rays – GCR (negative correlation)
    However, the Earth’s magnetic field is by far stronger GCR modulator.
    – Required extent of the solar modulation variability is not there while the geomagnetic is.
    – Temperature data has been ‘corrected’ (in order to improve the CO2 rise correlation) so much that the 1940s ‘hump’ has been almost written out of the data records.
    Even so the CO2 correlation is only tiny fraction higher than the one for the Earth’s magnetic field.

    • Vuk, you stated there are two competing theories of climate change, but you should already know there is a third: solar irradiance driven change. The fact that you didn’t mention that is very revealing.
      You are missing the main action by conflating the temperature increase to geomagnetism, whereas the real driver of long-term temperature changes is solar irradiance, ie solar flux.
      For your theory to work, it needs a mechanism. What is it? How does a nine year lag in geomagnetism cause a temperature change in the present? Where does the heat (or lack of) reside for nine years?
      Go outside and feel the heat of the Sun. That warmth you feel also warms the oceans and air, and none of that came from the solar wind – it came from solar irradiance. Even though F10.7 is under 110 sfu right now, in the NH we can still feel it one month before the summer solstice. In contrast, during the last winter, I could not feel any warmth from the Sun at all on my skin unless F10.7 was around 135 sfu or higher in clear skies.
      What happens at night when we don’t feel the irradiance? It cools off, even when the solar wind is strong.
      Looking at your graphic, it’s clear to me that both the Earth’s magnetic dipole and temperatures changed in response to solar activity, but I’m saying the temps changed from solar flux, not geomagnetism. We could debate the relative contributions of the solar flux and solar wind to that geomagnetic change.
      My data-driven observations from the past two winters are that solar wind blasts during the NH winter months caused SSWs, where expanding warm stratospheric air literally pushed colder arctic air southward, ie polar vortex excursions, that delivered record COLD temperatures in the US and elsewhere – the complete opposite effect you are pushing today.
      Solar activity changes affect the weather (and hence climate statistically) in the here and now (immediate to within a few weeks max of varying solar output), not nine years from now. The only significant thermal lag comes from the oceans.

      • Bob:
        Your explanation would be strengthened by using the term “insolation,” which is the cloud-modulated fraction of total solar irradiance that gets thermalized on our planet.

      • Hi Bob
        Thanks for detailed and constructive comment.
        GT data apparently shows nearly equal, and highest correlation of any possible forcing I have come across, to both CO2 and the geomagnetic dipole.
        There is no need to explain CO2 hypothesis.
        Geomagnetic forcing, if it is directly responsible for any input into climate change, one of the ways is via the GCR modulation. Since most readers are familiar with Svensmark’s hypothesis, it is simplest to expand on it, that does not necessarily make either of two any more or less viable.
        For what I know (it is ‘Friday Funny’ thread after all) it could be sun one way or another, it could be the GCR modulation of either kind, it could be even CO2 to some extent, it could be tectonics triggered by telluric currents of geomagnetic storms or tectonics triggered by isostatic rebound….or something else. I look at the data and if I find something of possible interest, I highlight it regardless.
        “…..the complete opposite effect you are pushing today.”
        Not necessarily. Have you looked at N. Hemisphere’s geomagnetic configuration?
        Perhaps (when time and commitments allow) take a good look at this:
        In no way contradicts what you said or the graph I posted above. To the contrary it links it all together: tectonics, SSW, polar vortex and the Earth’s magnetic field.
        Oceans are by far the largest reservoirs of the latent heat and most likely are responsible for various delays. It is estimated that one round trip in the N. Atlantic subpolar gyre may take anything between 15 and 20 years, the N. Pacific gyre may take even longer.

      • Bob Weber
        May 22, 2015 at 9:20 am
        “Even though F10.7 is under 110 sfu right now, in the NH we can still feel it one month before the summer solstice. In contrast, during the last winter, I could not feel any warmth from the Sun at all on my skin unless F10.7 was around 135 sfu or higher in clear skies.”
        Are you being sarcastic? Or are you not smart enough to know that insolation change due to orbital parameters is what you are describing.

      • Yes Tom, but maybe you’re projecting sarcasm yourself. That’s why I used two examples for illustration. I used two points of reference, winter and now, to illustrate the difference in our orbit at nearly opposite seasons. So maybe you could have been smart enough to realize that 😉
        During the winter, insolation is less here on the 45th parallel. Solar flux had to reach over 135 or so in the winter for me to feel it directly under clear skies. Today, when insolation is obviously higher due to regular seasonal orbital factors, as in it’s a month from the summer solstice, it takes a lesser solar flux energy level to just reach the threshold of actual warmth sensation here where I am. My lady and I both remarked after leaving the restaurant tonight how we couldn’t feel the heat off the Sun. Solar F10.7cm flux today at 5pm EST was 99 sfu.
        Naturally this means the threshold of warming sensation will vary, as does insolation, with both actual observed solar flux and latitude, under clear skies.
        Additionally, solar cell output power is dependent on both factors.

      • I should mention that “observed solar flux” is the daily measured value, and the “adjusted flux” takes into account the annual 7% orbital variation. But solar cells and our bodies and the Earth respond to the actual flux received, that varies with solar output and orbital variation, to be more precise.

      • Bob,
        You stated in response to Vuk,
        “You are missing the main action by conflating the temperature increase to geomagnetism, whereas the real driver of long-term temperature changes is solar irradiance, ie solar flux.”
        ( Bob Weber May 22, 2015 at 9:20 am)
        You then went on to give an example of insolation change due to orbital parameters which is not the same as real changes in solar irradiance. As has been discussed here a zillion times, small changes in TSI are swamped by insolation changes do to a variety of other reasons.

      • You missed the point Tom. The true solar variation in solar flux measurements is the “adjusted flux”, based on the true “observed flux” as measured in Penticton every day. Since F10.7cm solar flux varied from about 65 to over 300 sfu over the course of solar cycles 18-24, there is significant real energetic solar variation as measured on earth at whatever time of the year, on top of the orbital component in received flux. For more info on F10.7 flux see

      • You guys both have the insolation backwards. The insulation is higher during NH winter when the Earth is closer to the sun. It is farther away in NH summer.
        Are you both perhaps thinking of axial tilt? But putting you cheek square to the sun overcomes the tilt anyway.

      • Thanks Crispin. That’s what I get for watching American Sniper for the first time and commenting at the same time. Yes I meant axial tilt. I normally don’t use ‘insolation’ per se in what I’m doing, as the ‘observed flux’ is what I’m always interested in on the terrestrial side of the Sun-Earth connection.
        “Insolation figures are used as an input to worksheets to size solar power systems for the location where they will be installed.[11] This can be misleading since insolation figures assume the panels are parallel with the ground, when in fact, except in the case of asphalt solar collectors,[12] they are almost always mounted at an angle[13] to face towards the sun. This gives inaccurately low estimates for winter.[14] The figures can be obtained from an insolation map or by city or region from insolation tables that were generated with historical data over the last 30–50 years. Photovoltaic panels are rated under standard conditions to determine the Wp rating (watts peak),[15] which can then be used with the insolation of a region to determine the expected output, along with other factors such as tilt, tracking and shading (which can be included to create the installed Wp rating).[16] Insolation values range from 800 to 950 kWh/(kWp•y) in Norway to up to 2,900 in Australia.”
        The F10.7cm ‘adjusted’ solar flux takes into account the 7% difference between Earth’s aphelion and perihelion, which for Earth does occur in January
        If you want spend some time getting bedazzled by definitions, see

  4. Copied from an earlier comment here… We can only hope it is true:
    You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.
    Winston Churchill

  5. “…..We are new world politicians,
    Self-appointed science masters,
    Conjuring up our false predictions,
    Inventing fresh disasters…..
    …..Real world observations
    Are not your concern,
    We invent the truth for you,
    There’s nothing else to learn…..”

    • The mad Roman Emperor Caligula also declared war on Poseidon. He ordered his army to throw spears into the sea, followed by slave chains. And when he imagined that he’d won, he marched back to Rome with chests filled with spoils (sea shell).
      It’s scary how closely the two events are. Crazy, narcissistic leaders both order their militaries to defeat the seas, and neither understands how mad they appear to sane people.
      Mark Twain was right when he said that history sometimes rhymes.

      • I was going to bring up Caligula. You beat me to it.
        But I did hear somewhere that, perhaps, there was some method in this particular display of his madness.
        I forget the details but it had to do with him gaining blind obedience from his legions.
        “Crazy like a fox” is the phrase that comes to mind.

      • LarryFine
        Great comparison! Obummer and Caligula think alike — narcissistic obsession on self that creates a personal world untouched by outside reality.
        Several months ago Obummer declared victory in Yemen In fact come to think of it he removed the troops from Iraq bringing peace to the region and praised his Syrian diplomacy even after the attack that killed our ambassador. Where in the Middle East has he not said he has scored a victory?
        Eugene WR Gallun.

  6. They must have made a typo. Sea level rising about 12 mm per decade. That’s closer to four INCHES per century. Recent Glacier melt has been since the early 1700’s when Maunder Minimum little ice age ended. Man has nothing to do with it.
    Similar exaggeration saying 97% of scientists say man makes warming when it is about 55% if you ask more than the 77 in the sample used to get 97%. It is less and less as the time without warming approaches 20 years while CO2 rises.

    • We are not newly arrived on this planet. Let’s suppose 6 inches of rise for each of the last 500 years – that’s 2.5 ft. Where has land been lost to the sea from that rise? Not in the UK (Sommerset, Lincs, Anglia), and not the Netherlands. No good looking at Scandinavia, they’re rising faster than the sea. Venice? That’s been sinking since building started, and yet it’s still there. New York islands have grown. Where is the “devastation” of sea-level rise?

    • You don’t actually know how that 97% was arrived at, do you? It was through multiple peer reviewed studies of thousands of academic papers, not some email link sent out at random. Here are some of the confirming studies you can look at if you’re a genuine skeptic with an open mind:
      J. Cook, et al, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
      Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
      W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
      P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
      N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

      • And those 97% of scientists have been wrong more than 97% of the time. So what they believe is irrelevant.

      • Sir Harry Flashman
        May 22, 2015 at 9:08 am
        “You don’t actually know how that 97% was arrived at, do you? It was through multiple peer reviewed studies of thousands of academic papers, not some email link sent out at random.”
        Hey, it’s pointless to lie about it. Cook and his buddies scanned abstracts of thousands of papers and gave them some rating. We know that. Cook described the process. Then the SkS Treehouse “leak” happened because Cook was too stupid to secure their “secret” forum. So we know they colluded about what result to achieve.
        Why are you trying to spread your deluded fantasies here? Try it on ThinkProgress, those people will believe you.

      • “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.” But most did not express an opinion.

      • Then there is the careful survey of Meteorologists that only produces 52%… Here are References:
        [1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
        [2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

      • Paullitely
        And a heck of a lot less geologists than 52%. You think geologists and meteorologists know anything about the climate?
        97% OMG. That is an ex-duck, shuffled off the mortal coil, gone to meet its maker. The ‘consensus’ is not all it’s quacked up to be.

      • Sir Harry Flashman —
        No, you are the one who does not know how that 97% figure was arrived at.
        The first time this 97% figure appeared it was from a survey sent to 12,000 people of whom over 6000 responded. The surveyors didn’t get the answers they wanted so they began tossing people out of the survey. Finally the one qualification to participate in the survey that the surveyors used was that a participant had to have published two papers in recognized climate journals in the last year. Of the 6000 people who originally responded to the survey that requirement eliminated all but 87 people. Of that remaining 87 people 97% of them said we were in great danger from global warming. So 97% of 87 people believed in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) from a survey that originally had over 6000 respondents. That result is probably the most breathtaking act of cherry picking in all of recorded science. The lead author of the study recently admitted that such was exactly what he a public talk.
        As far as the Cook study goes — the study evaluated papers based on their expressed endorsement of the existence of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).
        Those are two entirely different things.
        Belief in AGW merely requires that you believe that mankind in some way adds heat to the environment — say the Urban Heat Island Effect. AGW’s effects on the earth are hardly noticeable.
        Belief in CAGW requires that you believe the earth is facing a soon to come world wide disaster due to mankind’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
        About 2 1/2% of those papers nominally endorsed the existence of CAGW. (A restudy of those papers sparked by complaints from some of the authors lowered that figure.)
        About 94 1/2% of those papers endorsed AGW.
        Another 3% endorsed neither.
        So the reality of the study was that over 97% of papers believed that there was nothing to be alarmed about — that mankind’s production of CO2 was basically harmless. Only by claiming that endorsing AGW was the same as endorsing CAGW and combining the numbers of both was your 97% figure of doom arrived at.
        You don’t run a legitimate survey by combining the answers from two unrelated questions — but John Cook-The-Books had no problem in doing that.
        I could go on about the other surveys but why bother. Someone gave you a computer list of talking points complete with citations — and you think everything you have on that list is true — never bothering to check any of it. Then you mostly just cut and paste from that list Truly your computer thinks for you.
        Eugene WR Gallun

    • Man had nothing to do with previous seas rising due to melting?
      But the chariots! These were invented before the pyramids! And all those chariots ran around Eurasia and Africa causing global warming thousands of years ago!

      • But all of the models agree that in 100 years it will be much warmer, which proves that the models are correct and it is worse than they thought. Since it has failed to get hotter for the past 18 years, and the sea is rising more slowly than projected, it will be far far worse when the temps and the ocean catch up to projections.
        Please pay no attention to the dissonance found between Obama’s inaugural speech and his speech at the Coast Guard Academy the other day. And stop believing your lying eyes regarding the weather: It has never been so hot and so cold, so wet and so dry, so stormy and so unstormy…and it is not a nice day out and the sky is not blue and CO2 is Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad Mojo!

    • Paullitely, it is not ‘information’ at all? It is a quasi-scientific wild-assed guess. QSWAG. It might also be called a pseudo-scientific wild assed guess PSWAG which is pronounced ‘swag’ because the p is silent.
      Like Cris3pin which has a silent ‘3’. ‘Waterloo has a silent ‘&’ so we normally leave it out. That’s a Mennonite thing: simplicity is best.

  7. Will President Obama’s enthusiasm for the Great Climate Delusion be what finally puts an end to it?

    • Perhaps. We can hope. Certainly if the cartoonist had drawn Obama in slightly deeper water and with a fin between his legs, his speech would have been seen as “Jumping the shark.”

  8. My one and only question has to be, why has this man not been arrested, charged with treason and executed yet?

    • Most countries would consider your statement about your Head of State to be closer to treason.
      You are lucky to have such freedom of speech.
      So use it to make more constructive criticisms instead of cheerleading for death.

      • Fortunately I do not live in the US. Besides isis who according to him is the jv team, has put out pictures of him being beheaded, while stating, they are going to murder him by beheading, and then raise the flag of jihad over the white house.
        Yet you think that somehow me saying he needs to be charged and tried then have sentence carried out is somehow a bit harsh?

      • I see, so you are now putting yourself on the same level as ISIS. Comments don’t get any lower than that.

    • NYT report on the new twit page by that person seems to also have a large number asking the same Q

    • Neil says: “My one and only question has to be, why has this man not been arrested, charged with treason and executed yet?”
      By whom?
      One flaw in the US system of governance is that only the other politicians can remove the President. Once the corruption of Congressmen or of Senators reaches a certain level, there is no legal way to oust a President. We learned that during the impeachment trial of Clinton by the Republican majority Senate.
      Why is the President not removed? We might as well ask why a Mafia don is not removed by his partners.

      • Thanks mate, I was well aware of the situation you mentioned. I was simply venting my frustration at the situation.

    • Neil —
      Being a malicious self-aggrandizing socialist idiot is not the same thing as treason. (Hmmmmm — probably worse since you can’t get rid of him.)
      Eugene WR Gallun

    • ren, the Weather Channel this morning called for below average temperatures for most of the US June-August, except for the west coast, naturally. Our tomato plants froze two nights in a row this week, and that’s not funny, even if it is Friday!

  9. Although I accept that this is a “Friday Funny” thread, am I the only reader here to find the McKee cartoon above frankly disgusting, and to question our host’s decision to copy it here?
    This is an obvious “take” on the appalling ISIL beheadings where religious bigotry and hatred led individuals such as “Jehadi John” publicly to behead persons including citizens both of the USA and UK – then to post obscene online images and videos of the killings.
    Whatever one’s political opinion of the Obama presidency, and his latest pronunciations on climate, can it really be conceived that the (duly elected) president of the United States would ever authorise or encourage US armed forces (whether inside or outside the US) to behead unarmed civilians – even combatants – as depicted? Not least, this cartoon is a complete travesty of the integrity and professionalism of the US armed forces who, some 70 years ago now, bravely led us (under Ike’s leadership) in freeing the European mainland from German occupation…

    • Please look at the cartoon again.
      I am a career USN vet and understand that the cartoon adresses Obama’s lack of interest in recognizing the real enemy compared to his obsession with GW/CC/whatever.
      You can encourage bad actions by averting your attention to other things.

      • To a fellow vet, thankyou for explaining to genius here what the cartoon was actually about.

    • You’ve missed the depiction. The depiction is of a President more concerned about hypothetical climate events than he is actual beheadings by radical extremists.
      The former is something about which the Coast Guard can do nothing, the latter would have been a more appropriate topic to discuss among graduates of an American military arm.
      How you turned that about is beyond me.

      • OK – even it’s just depicting Obama standing on one side watching US (or other) civilians about to killed by some Jihadi, isn’t this also a complete parody of the US armed forces? If the scene depicted were in the US he would have the entire US military immediately on call; if outside the US he would never be travelling without sufficient protection…

      • The people depicted are Christians (wearing crosses) and are middle eastern (Arabic) in appearance. 10% of the Syrian population is Christian. Likely to receive “special treatment” from ISIS.

    • Tim C-
      Mark’s right. You’ve missed the point.
      Agree it’s not in the least bit funny, but the satire is spot on. Checkout the thread by Lord Monckton following Obama’s speech itself.
      I find it, frankly, appalling that the man in the big white house distances himself from any real action in the mideast while these horrors continue and, indeed, grow. Somebody, someday will HAVE to deal with it, but not our Barack. The Climate speech to the Coastguard is looking less like a delusion and more like a diversion.

      • OK – accept I originally misread it: but what location is the cartoon scene supposedly depicting? If it’s the US coastline the parody is non-sensical – I can’t believe any US citizen would stand by allowing any such occurrence. If it’s the Eastern Med in Syria, Obama would need congressional approval to intervene – would he actually get this?

      • I can’t believe any US citizen would stand by allowing any such occurrence.
        For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. The withdrawal of US troops left a power vacuum which ISIS rushed in to fill. ISIS is an unintended consequence of US policy.

      • fossilsage May 22, 2015 at 10:29 am
        It’s not the animals talking that makes Dr. Doolittle seem incredible to TimC
        Sad but true

    • Tim,
      The cartoon is depicting actual events that happened in Libya just last February and mashing those events together with Obama’s silly speech. Coptic Christians from Egypt were captured and beheaded on the beach, simply because they were Christians. We even have their names. Their murders, and the reason they were murdered just don’t seem to make it on the presidential radar, but phony climatology does. Hmmm. We have forgotten 9-11 and…Hey! Squirrel! Or, why not remember these.
      1. Milad Makeen Zaky
      2. Abanub Ayad Atiya
      3. Maged Solaiman Shehata
      4. Yusuf Shukry Yunan
      5. Kirollos Shokry Fawzy
      6. Bishoy Astafanus Kamel
      7. Somaily Astafanus Kamel
      8. Malak Ibrahim Sinweet
      9.Tawadros Yusuf Tawadros
      10. Girgis Milad Sinweet
      11. Mina Fayez Aziz
      12. Hany Abdelmesih Salib
      13. Bishoy Adel Khalaf
      14. Samuel Alham Wilson
      15. Worker from Awr village
      16. Ezat Bishri Naseef
      17. Loqa Nagaty
      18. Gaber Munir Adly
      19. Esam Badir Samir
      20. Malak Farag Abram
      21. Sameh Salah Faruq

        As in other ISIL videos, the captives wore orange jumpsuits, intended as a reference to the attire of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[5] The group of killers identified itself in the video as the “Tripoli Province” of ISIL.[5] The leader of the squad performing the killings was identified as a Libyan expatriate who goes by the nom de guerre Al Qaqa’a Ben Omro.[8]
        The Coptic Church of Egypt, Egyptian government, as well as the Libyan parliament,[9] confirmed the deaths.

      • But religious persecution also takes place in other middle east (primarily Sunni as the Shia and Kurds appear to more tolerant) countries like Saudi Arabia . But since we need their oil and other support for the region, not much is said. Beheading is the preferred method of execution under Islam but the West doesn’t pay much attention so the practice seems barbaric to us.

      • I recognize one of those names; it is very likely a relative of someone I know and greatly respect.
        No man is an island, entire of itself.
        Each is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
        If a clod be washed away by the sea,
        Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were.
        As well as if a manor of thine own or of thine friend’s were.
        Each man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.
        Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls;
        it tolls for thee.
        —- John Donne

      • Thank you, McComber. This brilliantly horrible cartoon shows the depraved nature of this vile and stupid man who happens to be the President of the United States. How did it come down to this?

    • “TimC
      what country/world are you from?
      do you ever follow the news on tv, radio, internet ??
      talk about low info kinda guy…

    • TimC
      I wonder how a mind works that can get such a simple picture so wrong.
      Eugene WR Gallun

  10. Any day mow the sea will start rising so fast and you will be all sorry. Any day now guys. I realize the temperatures haven’t rose in 18 years but that is besides the point. This is the “any day now” most important issue of our times. To deny that “any day now” catastrophe will start hitting us would be blasphemy. Humans are usually right on doomsday predictions.

    • A crippled snail, not named Turbo could outrun the rate of rise in sea level. Hopefully, the president’s speech will scare people into selling their oceanfront property cheaply to me.

  11. Actually, I’m in complete agreement here with Obama considering the future danger that a rise of 8 inches could represent.
    After all, something experienced a rise of 8 inches when he was conceived and look what the result of that has been.

  12. Someone/s said on the difference between Science and Religion – In Science if the observations disagree with the theory then the theory is regarded as disproven and dropped. In Religion if this occurs, the Religion is kept and the observers punished.
    Hmmmm …

    • It is well-acknowledged by philosophers of science that the love of theory is what motivates individual scientists. It also motivates historians, and adherents of political and economic movements.
      This is easily verified by observing that those who are in the love of theory refuses to acknowledge the failures of the theory, and persecute those who do not favor the theory, often cherishing deep hatreds towards opponents.
      Still, many enjoy the angelic white lab coat and declare them saints, and children today are kissing icons of science. I would take one electrician, one drainage expert and one metal blast furnace operator over 10 Einsteins.
      In Christian belief, the doctrine in the text is required to live out the new life. It has primary data (the text), experimentation (practice & prayer), and results (an abundant and regenerated life). You can never say you have blindly believed. You can only say you had enough faith to believe it and to put it into practice; and you get results.

  13. 1 to 4 feet, what a precise prediction. It could be the same. Or a little more. Or a lot more.
    Thank goodness we do not settle for that level of accuracy in other areas, for example highway signs usually do not say, “Next exit 1 to 4 miles away”. Or landing on the moon would certainly be problematic, if the eta was within 1 to 4 days.
    Is that not a fair comparison since measuring miles, orbits, speed, etc is not as difficult as projecting sea level rise? I didn’t realize hitting a moving target 240,000 miles away from a base moving at 1,000 miles per hour while passing thru various and competing gravitational forces in a vacuum was so easy. Of course we did not try landing on the moon until we had certainty in the science and math involved, unlike climate science that feels 95% confidence in the certainty of their uncertainty is enough to go off half-cocked.

  14. I tried to put the sea level rise in context, in a recent Grauniad thread.
    Here’s my comment:
    “The average rate of global sea level rise is 3.2 millimeters per year, give or take 0.4 mm.”
    Source NOAA.
    Erm…has it occurred to anyone that you can just roll your trousers up?
    At the current rate it would be up to your knees by 2100.
    Oh, the humanity!!”
    And here are the replies:
    Reply 1: “Sounds insignificant in isolation, but factor in an increasing rate of rise with a supercharged troposphere. The later brings cyclones with lower atmospheric pressures, which allows the local surface of the sea to rise up higher, and stronger winds which pile the water higher against the coast. The higher temperatures also allow the air to hold (temporarily) more water vapor, giving storms more water to drop onto the land. The result is much higher storm surges coming on shore to meet up with flood waters trying to reach the sea…”
    Reply 2:”This extra ocean heat and volume played a role in Katrina and the Boulder Flood (of all things). As volume and temperature increase you don’t need to have Spielberg’s imagination to see what’s in the offing.”
    This has been my common experience – when alarmists are presented with actual measurements taken from the real world, they just bury it under a generous serving of unsupported and confused bullcrap.
    You can’t argue with such idiots. It seems that they actually delight in their own confusion.
    Predictably though, the replies received far more “likes” than my original comment.
    Such is life.

    • From indefatigablefrog:

      This has been my common experience – when alarmists are presented with actual measurements taken from the real world, they just bury it under a generous serving of unsupported and confused bullcrap.

      Those are the easier ones to handle, depending on the site. You stay calm and provide basic facts with links, let them descend into obvious unsupported bafflegab. The ones you could reach will respond to your tone.
      It depends on what you’re doing there, is it a popularity contest or missionary work? Some sites, you can’t win either way. And don’t kid yourself about looking for lost souls there, it ain’t the real world. If someone is the least bit questioning they’re clicks away from other info, or checking out one of those “paid denial” sites to see how bad they are (and finding out they’re not).

      • Not really “popularity contest or missionary work”. I was originally highly concerned about the threat of global warming. Also interested in climate science and renewable energy as a topic.
        I was therefore once quite alarmed. I had a head full of alarmist theories about runaway arctic methane emissions and supercharged hurricanes etc.
        It all fell flat when I started looking more deeply into the topic in recent years.
        Now, my interests have changed.
        I’m now more interested in the psychology of mass hysteria.
        It’s very interesting to see how alarmists respond to the U.S. coastline hurricane lull, the non warming of the lower troposphere or the antartic sea ice record maxima etc.
        It’s also interesting to watch how they prefer fearful muddle and self-imposed poverty and hazard to straight thinking and positive constructive policies that create wealth and security!!
        At least, at the Grauniad, anyway!!

    • It’s very likely that warmists experience a flood of endorphins every time they read climataster stories. These people are addicted and don’t know it. Assuring them there’s no catastrophe coming is to threaten the supply of their drug of choice.

    • Ifrog…
      What gets me every time is the anti-scientific claim that a warmer world will have an atmosphere that ‘holds more water temporarily’ as if the low temperature that leads to condensation will not rise, only the high temperature.
      They overlook the fact that if it is ‘warmer’ everything is warmer, not just the daily high. If the delta T is the same, rainfall is about the same. CAGW thrives and survives only on ignorance of how physical systems work.
      Even Trenberth realises the importance of what is claimed to be missing heat. Maybe it is just not there. Maybe it is not missing. Maybe it is just not getting warmer as it was for 20 years. Maintaining a belief that there is heat missing is more important than facing terrifying facts.

      • Absolutely, Crispin. And whether your mental “model” is strictly accurate – it does seem to be born out by real-world measurement of rainfall trends.
        In my very earliest forays into skepticism, I started looking up charts of rain data and looking for notable trends. I had become skeptical of the precision of surface temps, for clear and justifiable reasons.
        But the mainstream theory that still stands tells us that warmer weather will lead to higher rainfall.
        Looking up a selection of rainfall average graphs for the last century is highly illuminating therefore.
        Unlike the temp record, the method of measurement is very reliable and has changed little over the last century.
        An evening looking at google image results of rainfall average graphs presents a very clear picture of what is, in general, happening to rainfall trends.
        What is happening is, basically, bugger all, in the scheme of things.
        In line with the theoretical analysis that you have presented!!!
        Which is encouraging.
        Although your theory could be wrong, even though it successfully predicts reality.
        We must always remember that. 🙂

  15. IPCC AR5 Figure 4.16
    Between 1991 and 2012 the alleged ice mass loss from Antarctica added 5.5 mm sea level equivalents.
    Does anybody understand how small a mm is? It’s about 1/32nd of an inch! How did they measure that? It’s a statistical fabrication? Look in your tool box at a 6mm socket or box end. Is this supposed to be a BFD?

    • I have a nice little stainless steel 6″ engineers rule with 1/32nd” and 1/64th” markings, metric too, the sort you’d see in the top pocket of engineers of old, it’s a lovely little rule. I use it for setting up the action on my bass guitar. I can bearly read 1/32nd markings in good light let alone the 1/64th and I used to work to within +/- 2 microns once at IBM!!

    • Averages and models? I can do that simply by sucking my finger and sticking it up in the air!

    • From “Sir Harry Flashman”:

      …the ongoing rate of loss of Antarctic ice has increased by a third since the 2005-2010 period.

      From abstract (emphasis added):

      We use 3 years of Cryosat-2 radar altimeter data…

      Between 2010 and 2013, West Antarctica, East Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by −134 ± 27, −3 ± 36, and −23 ± 18 Gt yr−1, respectively.

      However, the average rate of ice thinning in West Antarctica has also continued to rise, and mass losses from this sector are now 31% greater than over the period 2005–2010.

      They mashed together just three years from one satellite with previous data, got an error range 24 times the one measurement, and the loss increase is in the troubled West Antarctica area and not across Antarctica as implied.
      Overall the 2010-2013 range is -241 to -79 Gt/yr.
      “The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice.” (ref)
      1 cubic meter of solid ice = 0.919 tonne (ref)
      30E6 km^3 * (1000m/km)^3 * 0.919 t/m^3
      = 2.757E16 t = 27,570,000 Gt (1 Giga = 10^9)
      So the rate of loss is -0.000008741 to -0.000002865 of the Antarctic Ice Sheet per year.
      I don’t think that’s particularly worth worrying about. Besides, it’s an interglacial, ice is expected to melt.

    • @Harry, think of a mm this way, You buy a very high quality pair of shoes, premium leather etc and you wear them only on Sundays. Over about 30 years you just might, just might wear them down a millimeter.

  16. Does anybody understand how small a mm is? It’s about 1/32nd of an inch! How did they measure that?
    A really good question! How DID they measure that? And did they take into account all weather, land mass changes, gravitiational impacts, changes in evaporation due to higher temps, etc?

    • Metric measurements are very acurately measured and regulated. It’s how we got from “an inch” (thumb), to “a foot” (a foot), chains and ferlongs etc and so on. Having worked with imperial machines and metric drawings, I would go with metric machines and metric drawings every time. Consider, how small a micron is? If I recall correctly a micron is about 1/3rd of 1/1000 of an inch. Now I used imperial micrometers in the past but when DIGITAL devices appeared…you could switch from metric to imperial…by the touch of a button!

      • I’m trying to find the reference where I read that barleycorns were an original manner of the measure of mass, too, but can’t find it. Three barleycorns laid on end was an inch. Much more regular than thumbs.

    • They didn’t measure it, they calculated it.
      An awful lot of measurements were made of the distance between a satellite and the closest bit of sea-water at that moment. Then the fun began.

  17. My letter to the UK foriegn minister.
    Mr Philip Hammond
    Foreign Minister
    Re: ISIS and a ‘Syria-Israel’ alliance?
    Dear Mr Hammond,
    According to the International Business Times, ISIS is closing in on the borders of Israel. So perhaps your rather uninformed Foreign Office needs some ‘blue-sky thinking’ on what the ramifications of this expansion may be. Since Willy Hague got the policy on Syria completely wrong the last time, I think you will need all the help you can get.
    Correct predictions.
    And you might want to listen to my diatribe, because way back in 2011 I predicted everything that Assad in Syria has subsequently done (emails available). And I also predicted the expansive campaigns of ISIS in my analysis in my last letter, early last year. This was not so much an analysis and more a prediction that ISIS will try to follow the history of Muhummad’s 7th century military campaigns. ISIS is driven by a literal interpretation of the Koran, so it is logical that they will also be driven by a literal interpretation of the history of Muhummad – which includes an attack on Syria, Israel, Anatolia and then North Africa.
    But this will be interesting, because ISIS will find Israel better defended than in the 7th century. But ISIS is populated and led by brain-washed Muslim barbarians, who may not appreciate that. They believe their own propaganda; they believe their own invincibility; and they believe they are guided and protected by god. So will ISIS attack the ‘Little Satan’? You bet they will, and the results will be very interesting. This will be the excuse that Israel needs to expand out from Israel “to protect its borders”, causing another major Near Eastern war.
    A Syria-Israel alliance?
    However, if Israel is wise enough it will seek a covert and then an overt alliance with Assad in Syria. Assad’s Alawites are not Muslims. They are actually Christio-Nazarene and thus Christo-Jewish, and may well accept an alliance with Israel if the terms look favourable. The only reason that Assad’s Alawites could not do this before, is because they were pretending to be Muslim to avoid the usual persecution and paying the Jizya tax (a standard Muslim and ISIS policy throughout the centuries). The Alawites have made this pretense for more than 1,000 years, although they were still consigned to the gutters of Syrian society for most of that time. They only gained power via the French in the early 20th century, who were also looking for allies in the region.
    However the true allegiancies of Assad’s Alawites are now well and truly out of the bag. The only real support that Assad has in Syria is from the Syriac Christians, who know that they are in the same ‘persecution boat’ as the Alawites. If Assad falls and his Alawites slaughtered, then the Syriac Christians will fall and be slaughtered alongside him. So Assad already has a secret alliance with the Syriac Christians, and it is only one small step further for him to really come out of the closet and have an alliance with Israel too.
    For who will protect Assad now? The Sunnis and ISIS certainly will not. Perhaps a few Shia in Hezbollah might assist him, but who are Hezbollah versus the might of Israel and the West? The only stumbling block to this alliance between Assad and Israel is Obama and McCain in the US, who would not entertain it. McCain will not entertain it because he is too dumb to understand the politics, while Obama is a Sunni Muslim who wants to destroy both Assad and Israel (and America). But with a new president in the US in a year or so, then why not?
    An Israel-Syria alliance would certainly change the dynamics of the Middle East forever. Can you imagine an Alawite-Christian Syria opened up for tourism, just like Greece or Cyprus? With Turkey plunging ever deeper into an Islamic abyss, Syria would become the new tourist destination in the eastern Med.
    And this could happen very quickly. Resort cities like Latakia are very nice, and because they are majority Alawite they are untouched by the recent conflict. Latakia was built on Saudi sex, drink, gambling, and bacon sandwiches – one of the many playground destinations for the typical hypocritical Saudi prince (and not as obviously Western as Cannes or Majorca). All Assad needs to do is upgrade the airport at Batrah, and he could have the tourists flocking in next year (as soon as they feel safe). Many of the ‘Saudi’ hotels are already of Western standard, so there would be little infrastructure to build.
    More importantly, the West would have a greater presence and much greater leverage in the all-important Middle East. The U.S.E. (ie: the E.U.) has placed much effort in expanding eastwards into Ukraine, while ignoring the much more economically and strategically important Near and Middle East. Another Western outpost in the eastern Mediterranean would be strategically much more important than a few more acres of Lebensraum in the Ukraine. America could move its airbase in Adana to Syria, and let the Turkish regime spiral into decay and destitution without any loss of strategic coverage.
    A question to Assad.
    So perhaps it is time to ask Assad a question or two ….. Come on Assad, what do you think is best – utter isolation with no friends in the West or East, and thus withering on a stagnant economic vine? Or an alliance with the Israel and the West, and a huge influx of Western currency and reconstruction? You cannot pretend you are Muslim any more, because everyone knows the truth now. So why not join the civilised world? Your much-prsecuted people have been wanting to throw off the pretense and the harsh yoke of Islam for more than 1,000 years. Your people have been subjugated for an eternity but this is your opportunity – you either grasp it now, or suffer another 1,000 years under the harsh yoke of Islam. Your choice mate…..
    P.S. And if anyone says that we cannot do deals with a murdering tyrant – just remember that America and Britain killed more people in the two Gulf Wars than Assad has done while protecting his nation and people. It is about time you threw the fluffy liberals out of the F.O. and brought in some new rational talent. I am open to offers…
    Hussain Obama bows before his spiritual master…

  18. Obama doesn’t need to understand the climate system, future sea-level changes, etc., etc. He has the divine insight of those who lead from behind. 😉

  19. We live in a pathetic world of lies and fraud. The oceans are rising so fast that municipalities continue to issue building permits on the coast. Collect the money: Building permits, impact fees, future property taxes….

    • robbertvd —
      Obviously this man thinks he does his best work on drugs. Got elected in 2007 to an ultra safe democratic district in Georgia and is never going away. I can only say that the people who keep re-electing him must use stronger drugs than he does..
      Eugene WR Gallun

  20. Rick McKee’s cartoon is el perfecto! Once again Obama has proven that in the Academics’ de-realized “rhetoric over reality” world of untethered verbiage, the troubled waters can indeed be smoothed – if we all would only repeat exactly what he says and do exactly as he commands “before it’s too late!”….Which also fully qualifies him as a “mainstream” Climate Scientist!

  21. Reblogged this on Climate Change Sanity and commented:
    What can you say about a President that maintains that “global warming” is the greatest threat in the world today? The cartoon that accompanies this WUWT posting is better than any words I can put together.

  22. It seems like I have low tolerance for dark humor.
    I found this cartoon repulsive.
    But not as repulsive as the role the U.S. played in the whole Arab Spring thing and the Iranian crisis that came to nothing good, though.

  23. Even Flashman above didn’t defend Obama’s BS.
    Are there *ANY* Libtards left that believe in Obama’s Global Warming BS?

    • Amazing! I guess the Hot Whopper completely missed the actual ISIS Video: Hot Whopper says, ” the kneeling bearded men (I think they are meant to represent journalists brutally beheaded),” and mockingly says that those bearded men on their knees must be “bearded Buddhist Christians”. Either ignorance is bliss, at least for a Hot Whopper, or it looks like there might be some real life drawbacks to not watching Faux News?

      • Hard to believe that someone could be so completely unaware of one of the most horrific and brutal and widely publicized events in recent news.
        Next we’ll have POTUS explaining how the fall of Palmyra and Ramadi are just tactical set backs and really, the war against ISIS is actually being won.

    • I hit the link, the author of that post is certainly no fan of Anthony.
      That is about all I got out of the screed that followed.

  24. I don’t think this is what Churchill meant when he said “We shall fight on the beaches”.

  25. Back in the real world the ice sheets on Antarctica are disintegrating:
    adding to all that sea ice you’re so fond of quoting but totally misunderstanding its significance.
    But apparently the climate’s always been changing right? Just like I’m sure it’s merely coincidence or some liberul conspiracy that the Larsen ice sheet that hasn’t melted in 10,000 years and yet is deciding to do so now…

    • Back in the real world the ice sheets on Antarctica are disintegrating
      Back in the real world the doggy’s common sense is disintegrating:
      Global ice is now well above its long term average (see the red chart line).
      Global ice is increasing because there is no global warming. That is common sense — which isn’t all that common, as we see from the pooch’s comment.

      • You really don’t understand anything about statistics, physics, or science in general do you?
        Do you deliberately repeat the same easily debunked talking points because you are trying to be deliberately misleading or is it because you failed University? (assuming you actually got into University, which to be fair is probably a pretty long stretch). It’s beginning to get tiresome smacking you and your sad middle aged libertarian male colleagues down time and time again.
        The appeal to total sea ice cover of course, doesn’t make any distinction between arctic and antarctic sea ice- nor volume of the ice (as opposed to surface area). Arctic sea ice area is at near record low levels and have been on a clear downwards trajectory since satellites started measuring it.
        The antarctic is more complex (I know you and your libertarian chumps don’t like complexity) but is qualitatively different since most of the ice mass is on the land not the sea.This means when the ice melts from the land into the sea it decreases the salinity of the sea water, hence raising its freezing temperature and voila, more ice.
        Comparing arctic and antarctic sea ice is like trying to compare temperature variability from ice cores versus satellite measurements. It shouldn’t be done naively. Oh wait- you’ve already shown you don’t understand that either.

      • Siberian
        Did you just say the land ice is melting in Antarctica? Seriously?
        Have a look at Wikipedia and search for ‘the melting point of ice’. Remember the number. Then look at the May temperatures for Antarctic (pick a spot where the ice is ‘missing’).
        Compare the numbers. See if the land temperature is above or below the melting point of ice.
        Then meditate on what you have just discovered about the possibility that land ice is melting in Antarctica.

      • Siberian Husky;
        This means when the ice melts from the land into the sea it decreases the salinity of the sea water, hence raising its freezing temperature and voila, more ice.
        So by that logic sea ice around Greenland ought to be increasing too?

      • Dmh: Correct (ish). The sea ice around Greenland is thicker than the rest of the arctic.
        Crispin- I’m going to try not to be too unkind. You see, in the Southern Hemisphere, May is approaching winter. So why would I look in May to find high temperatures (unless I was an ignorant USA-centric American)? If you’d watched anything other than Fox News, you’d see that in early 2015 (i.e. Southern Hemisphere summer), Antarctica was experiencing record breaking temperatures:
        You know, like 15 degrees celsius?
        But thankyou for making my case about the intellect of the average WUWT reader.

      • Siberian Husky May 22, 2015 at 11:11 pm
        Dmh: Correct (ish). The sea ice around Greenland is thicker than the rest of the arctic.

        It has nothing to do with it being thicker than the rest of the arctic or not. Either it is increasing or it isn’t.

      • Antarctica was experiencing record breaking temperatures:
        You know, like 15 degrees celsius?
        But thankyou for making my case about the intellect of the average WUWT reader.

        From the article you link to, it turns out that none other than Gavin Schmidt himself cautions against reading anything of importance into that isolated event:
        It’s hard to draw much conclusion from a single temperature record, cautions Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Last year Antarctica also logged a record cold temperature, he notes.
        What’s more important are the long-term trends, says Schmidt. And when it comes to Antarctica, he points out, the past few years “have actually been quite complex.”
        The world’s ocean has been warming rapidly, absorbing much of the planet’s excess heat. As a result, large glaciers on or around Antarctica that come in contact with the warming water have been melting rapidly. But some other glaciers farther inland on the continent are actually growing.
        “That has not been satisfactorily explained,” says Schmidt.

        Perhaps you’ll send him an email and tell him he appears just as uneducated at the WUWT readership?

      • Doggy is full of assertions here.
        But that’s all they are. I posted verifiable evidence; doggy posted his pretty much baseless opinions.
        Teaching him about the man-made global warming hoax is like teaching algebra. Difficult, to say the least.

      • No Dmh, I won’t be sending him an email. He doesn’t make stupid statements like more global sea ice means that AGW doesn’t exist/isn’t a problem. Because he’s a real scientist. Not a delusional middle aged man who never finished University.
        BTW, it’s great that Hilary is a firm believer in AGW. Hope all you guys enjoy a lady ruling your country for the next 8 years.

      • Heh, Man’s Beast Friend pukes up a hairball of sexism after pissing all over his understanding of ice. Don’t eat the yellow snow, even if it smells like Friend not Foe.

      • Well, my problem is readily apparent. I wasn’t even trying to rhyme the last sentence in that comment.

      • Siberian Husky May 23, 2015 at 1:29 am
        No Dmh, I won’t be sending him an email. He doesn’t make stupid statements like more global sea ice means that AGW doesn’t exist/isn’t a problem. Because he’s a real scientist.

        He contradicted your claim right in an article you asserted supported your claim! That leaves you three choices:
        1. Admit you were wrong.
        2. Prove yourself right by challenging the expert opinion you yourself inadvertantly cited and show that it is wrong.
        3. Deflect.
        You’ve chosen to deflect, which is just a disingenuous admission that you were wrong.

      • Siberian Husky
        May 23, 2015 at 1:29 am
        ” BTW, it’s great that Hilary is a firm believer in AGW. Hope all you guys enjoy a lady ruling your country for the next 8 years.”
        Come on now, we were playing nice, no need to get so freakishly invective.
        We are already having nightmares.

      • doggy sez:
        Do you deliberately repeat the same easily debunked talking points…
        That comment was referring to the chart I posted.
        If that is an “easily debunked talking point”, maybe Mr. Husky would care to argue the point with the University of Illinois? Because they produced the chart, which is in real time and shows that global ice cover is well above its long term average.
        Husky, you’ve been called out and challenged. Put up, as they say, or shut up.
        Either you can “debunk” it, or you lose the argument. Good luck.

      • Siberian, thanks for update on one above ‘record’ temperature that is so meaningless that even GAVIN for heaven’s sake played it down.
        Now let’s look at the long term (since 1957) temperature record for Antarctica and lo, it is gently declining. There is even a page provided by Anthony just to track ice and the like in Antarctica.
        When we examine the areas you claimed are ‘melting’ I find the average temperature and the high ans low are below zero. That is frigging amazing – melting ice below the freezing point? Now there’s a scientific curiosity.
        In summer the penguins incubate their eggs on their little cute webbed feet. Why? Because the ground is frozen!! At sea level. All year. There are melted spots here and there on the coast of Antarctica. But that is not where the land masses are losing their piddly 100 cubic kilometers out of 25,000,000 available. Meanwhile in the east snow accumulation is increasing. You what Gavin blamed that on? Global warming.
        Well, when Antarctica had no ice on it, it was a heck of a lot warmer than now. That would be fine by me. If the world was a lot warmer the northern latitudes would be farmable and the Sahara rains would kick in again as they did 10,000 years ago.

    • Siberian Husky — To all your statements and replies one is forced to answer — you are barking up the wrong tree. I know that is trite but i could not help myself. Reply to the trite with the trite that way I feel i will not get above your level of understanding.
      Eugene WR Gallun

  26. The sea rose 8 inches in the last century and billions perished. If the sea rises 1 to 3 feet more in the next hundred years, billions more will perish.

  27. When you look at the decisions and comments, obama must either be an evil socialist genius or the stupidest guy around. At this desperate point in time, I would be more comfortable with him being an evil socialist but it’s highly unlikely.
    As we conclude year 7 of our “Dear Leader’s” rule, the worlds evil powers seems to be ready to challenge us militarily before Dear Leader leaves office. With Sunspot Cooling on the way and major crop failures around the corner, the U.S. Needs a real leader now. I’m afraid there is going to be irreversable damage done by the time our Dear Leader leaves office. These are truly scary times!

  28. Obama was right
    The projections in the IPCC AR5 report say:

    For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confi¬dence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process-based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1

    (IPCC AR5 page 1140)
    To get the full maximum range in the next century you have to add the 16 mm/year from the middle of the 2081 – 2100 range to the end of the century and subtract the rise from the middle of the 1985 -2005 interval to the beginning of the century.
    The maximum of the projections for the 2000 to 2100 interval is then 1.11 meter, or 3 feet 7.7 inches.
    The AR 5 continues to say:

    Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initi-ated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribu¬tion cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century.

    We are then well above 4 feet
    Whether the projections are right is another issue

    • Wow- an intelligent comment from a WUWT reader. Somebody take a snapshot and frame it.

      • The rate is and has been 4 – 8 inches per century. Obama would puke pink froth before announcing that.

      • Sit boy! Now good dog. Lie down and be quiet!
        Now try not to be so arrogant and rude and listen and try to learn!!
        And quit defending obummer you sycophant.

      • Siberian Husky — As an WUWT reader at least you are right to imply that you yourself have never made an intelligent comment here — Eugene WR Gallun

    • Well, it was barbar to me, but with all the red and rising trends I’ll presume you’re a rabid alarmist. You have my sympathies; the fever will run its course.

  29. Martin van Etten says:
    dbstealey has nothing more than this: ?
    Isn’t that enough, Martin?
    It shows you that global ice cover is increasing. It falsifies the alarmist crowd’s ‘disappearing ice’ scare. That’s why you don’t like it.

  30. dbstealey, please explain yourself, what you have is nothing;
    you talk about sea ice area and provide a graph without source to begin with;
    next to that we need glasses to see any difference in years;
    besides that we miss other parameters, thickness;
    where do you see the increase in total cubic (kilo)meters or what ever in this graph?
    I provided you with a link to my website with hundreds of references to scientific articles about the ice situation;
    no reaction from you, again, please explain yourself;

    • Arctic Sea Ice Volume rebounding recently, as might be expected first in a recovery.

  31. Martin says:
    dbstealey, please explain yourself
    OK, sure, since you said “please”. The graph I posted is sourced in the address bar, as anyone with a knowledge of computers can see.
    It is the CRYOSPHERE TODAY graph produced by the University of Illinois. It is in real time, updated daily five days a week. As you can see here, they provide data to the IPCC, so they aren’t skeptics of man-made global warming as you would expect. If they have any agenda at all, it is the same as the IPCC’s (which now admits that global warming has stopped).
    The graph clearly shows that global ice cover now exceeds its long term average. And global ice is the only relevant metric when discussing global warming. Wouldn’t you agree? The Arctic is only a region, and changes there are simply regional changes that happen all the time.
    As far as the other parameters, the next most important one is ice volume. The Antarctic has 10X more ice than the Arctic, and Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing. That is why global ice is increasing:
    You finish with:
    “no reaction from you, again, please explain yourself”
    If I have not fully explained the situation, feel free to ask any other questions you have. Keep in mind that the climate alarmist clique is still clinging to the ‘disappearing Arctic ice’ myth, because out of all the many scary predictions they have made, that is the only one that is not 100% wrong. It is only about 97% wrong.
    Now it’s time fror you to explain yourself: please answer this question in detail:
    What, exactly, would it take to convince you that you are wrong about the “dangerous man-made global warming” narrative? Would it take twenty full years with no global warming? Would it take a new Ice Age, with glaciers covering the University of Illinois a mile deep again?
    What, exactly? Or will nothing ever convince you that your ‘dangerous MMGW’ conjecture could possibly be wrong?

  32. @ dbstealey
    apart from the technical discussion about sea ice or on the subject of manmade global warming that you started, I would like to receive an apology for words as ‘ clique’ and the cartoon and ISIS comparison this website started;
    I did’nt bring global warming in the discussion, I mentioned the fact that there is a wealth of articles and scientific information about sea level rise, now circa 3,4 mm a year and increasing;
    that is the point the cartoon is denying;
    about that subject you did not respond;
    since I responded to your Ice graph, I will answer this remark: ” And global ice is the only relevant metric when discussing global warming.”
    for me it seems to be completely unscientific to add northpole ice and southpole ice to one pile without any commentary or explanation ;
    for instance: it seems that there are glaciers at the southpole that are melting and are bringing million of tons of water into the sea;
    where is that in your ‘relevant metric’?

    • The rate of sea level rise is not accelerating and glaciers at the South Pole are not melting. Now why have I even gone near all the yellow snow?

    • Volume, a leading indicator of recovery. I’ve wondered if the location of the most recovery in volume is in line with the Stadium Wave, but suspect that may be expecting too much precision of the method for the wild, wooly, and windy ‘land’ that is the Arctic.

  33. Martin says:
    apart from the technical discussion about sea ice or on the subject of manmade global warming that you started…
    Martin, you give me too much credit. The discussion about sea ice was started by the climate alarmist crowd, which had predicted that Arctic ice would vanish by now. As with every other alarming prediction they ever made, that one was wrong, too. And if there is man-made global warming (MMGW), please tell us what fraction of global warming is caused by human activity. Post it here, as a percentage of total global warming.
    I would like to receive an apology for words as ‘ clique’
    Your desires are too small, Martin. I would like to win the next Powerball lottery that exceeds $200 million.
    Maybe this is a language difficulty. I wasn’t trying to insult you. You are part of a clique for this reason: scientists promoting the MMGW scare are far outnumbered (at least in the U.S.) by scientists who dispute that there is a problem. The ones who say there is a problem get something out of their evidence-deficient climate alarmism, whether it’s money, or getting their articles published in professional journals, or tenure, or expense-paid trips to holiday venues. My handy online dictionary defines a “clique” as:
    A small group of people, with shared interests or other features in common, who spend time together and do not readily allow others to join them.
    That pefectly defines the promoters of the MMGW narrative, no?. Maybe not the mindless lemmings in the general public who are just head-nodding along with the constant drumbeat of news stories. But everyone who benefits from the MMGW alarm is part of the same clique.
    Next, regarding your objection to the cartoon, I didn’t produce it or comment on it. But I think it is relevant. You don’t want to be like ISIS, do you? They also object to cartoons.
    Finally, you say:
    it seems that there are glaciers at the southpole that are melting…
    It seems to me you are completely wrong:
    That is also an NSIDC graph. Since the Antarctic contains a 10X greater volume of ice than the Arctic does, it is obvious why the regional variability in the Arctic doesn’t matter. Global ice is the correct metric, but your side does not use that because that would be the end of your “Arctic ice is disappearing” scare.

  34. @ dbstealey
    “which had predicted that Arctic ice would vanish by now”
    this is oncorrect, the vanishing should appear at the time of the summer minimum the end of sebtember somewhere between aprox 2015 and 2050;
    “regarding your objection to the cartoon, I didn’t produce it or comment on it. But I think it is relevant”
    it is reprinted at the wuwt website, that allready is a comment, besides that you call it ‘Friday Funny’;
    “it seems that there are glaciers at the southpole that are melting… It seems to me you are completely wrong:”
    the graph you provided seems to me extent of sea ice; glacier ice is something different;
    please do look here:
    its you who is complete wrong: to talk about glacier ice in the mean time providing a graph about sea ice extent; we are not stupid…;
    you did that before: see your comment May 23, 2015 at 12:44 pm
    here you write:
    “As far as the other parameters, the next most important one is ice volume. The Antarctic has 10X more ice than the Arctic, and Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing. That is why global ice is increasing:”
    than you provide a graph called ‘southern hemispher sea ice area’ with the ice calculated in ‘square kilometers’
    dbstealey, this is not the volume, the global ice that is increasing, that is just floating sea ice, and not the glacier ice that is being lost at an increasing rate;
    dbstealey, please be more accurate;

    • Arctic ice volume on land and sea is roughly one fifth of the land and sea ice on and around Antarctica. The total volume is increasing and there is no such thing as ‘accelerating ice mass loss’ on the planet. Why would there be? There is no additional warming since about 1998 so why should stable temperature see a loss of lice and snow? That makes no sense.
      Sea level rise is not ‘increasing’ either. It is plodding along as it has for ages, maybe slowing a little, maybe stopping. Sea level might rise from fresh water pumping and sea temperature increasing though apparently that claim is shaky at best. There are glaciers melting in Europe but the volume change is piddling.
      There just isn’t anything anyone can find that is alarming taking place. Whatever happens, adapt! We are good at it.

  35. @dbstealey
    have a good pentacost;
    I even forgot the most recent news from Bristol (UK) and Utrecht (Netherlands) University (mostly Dutch scientists;
    ( ‘if there is a problem with rising seas, bring in the Dutch…’)
    ‘Sudden onset of ice loss in Antarctica detected’
    see also:
    ‘Dynamic thinning of glaciers on the Southern Antarctic Peninsula’
    where is that ice (water) in your picture?

    • That is very funny, M. Is that your proposed mechanism for the recent increased Southern sea ice extent? Is the cartoonist putting you on?
      Naw, that couldn’t happen, but it’s highly amusing to so conjecture.

  36. Southern ice mass change is indefinite enough that you can support your vision and others, other views, but again, you stumble over attribution.

    • You would seem a lot more sensible if you talked about glaciers calving at the South Pole instead of melting. Yeah, yeah, I knew you meant ‘Antarctica’ not the ‘South Pole’.
      Martin van Etten; please be more accurate.

  37. @ kim
    “Is that your proposed mechanism for the recent increased”
    no kim, it is to show you that you can have less tasteless cartoons concerning this matter;

    • Taste is individual, accuracy universal. I’m glad you didn’t try to defend your cartoon’s truth.

    • Sure, vulcanism on the Palmer Peninsula. Is there more glacier loss in Antarctica from thinning(melting) or from calving?

  38. @ kim
    you did not confirm that you did read this:
    “Growing evidence has demonstrated the importance of ice shelf buttressing on the inland grounded ice, especially if it is resting on bedrock below sea level. Much of the Southern Antarctic Peninsula satisfies this condition and also possesses a bed slope that deepens inland. Such ice sheet geometry is potentially unstable. We use satellite altimetry and gravity observations to show that a major portion of the region has, since 2009, destabilized. Ice mass loss of the marine-terminating glaciers has rapidly accelerated from close to balance in the 2000s to a sustained rate of –56 ± 8 gigatons per year, constituting a major fraction of Antarctica’s contribution to rising sea level. The widespread, simultaneous nature of the acceleration, in the absence of a persistent atmospheric forcing, points to an oceanic driving mechanism. ”
    from close to balance (with the vulcano) to minus 58 gigatons per year because of an oceanic driving mechanism….
    here is the rest, also very interesting:

    • So a half a decade of study of a local oceanic effect, notably unspecified. It’s funny, if you take ‘ice’ out of ‘noticeably’, you get ‘notably’. I hope you like that.
      How much southern loss from melting by whatever name, and how much from calving? Sounds to me like the danger specified there is from the deepening slope inland, and wild card volcanoes. I swim happily through your oceanic effect, knowing it has and will vary.

  39. Here’s the sad thing; he could be providing perspective. What do we get instead? A tasteless cartoon of expertise.
    Really oughta clean up your act. You could, you know.

  40. @kim
    I realy have to apologize that I am not a native english speaker; so I find it difficult to decide whether your thoughts on noticeably and notably have some deeper meaning;
    I would like you to stick to the more scientific language and conclusions of the science article, that is easier for me to understand;
    that you will “swim happily through your oceanic effect, knowing it has and will vary,” is up to you, what intrests me is the cause of this variation, not that it varies, that is obvious since the time of Louis Agassiz;

    • Yes, and what might suggest to you that the cause is anthropogenic, or am I extending your thoughts further than do you?
      Your English is fine. Mine is variant.

  41. @ kim May 27, 2015 at 10:57 am
    “that the cause is anthropogenic”
    sometimes, yes (anthropogenetic global warming), sometimes it is natural variation (Agassiz);

    • OK, now that we’ve belaboured the obvious, let’s get back to how much from calving and how much from melting, and uh, oh how similar the both do look.

      • And since sea level rise rate remains the same, why make such a big deal of this local, short term effect, the cause of which we’ve most likely nothing to do with?
        Perspective, man. We could use a little of it from an expert.

  42. @ kim
    I was not realy discussing the matter of ice melting; that subject was brought up by dbstealey who now left the discussion;
    my aim was to to ask for an apology for the publication of a tasteless cartoon that was offending me and others; see my entry of May 24, 2015 at 9:23 am;
    instead I got some kind of a one sighted discussion, and not an apology;
    this last point realy disturbs me because I don’t see why you sceptics, deniers or wahtever you are called or are calling yourselfs feel free to offend people that have different thoughts on subjects in the natural environment;
    that is the problem, not the balance between calving or melting;
    so please answer the question whether is is normal to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism or not;
    why they are portrayed as ‘christians’ with crosses and why Obama is helped by this man in black ready to cut throats;
    and why this Watts is calling this cartoon an ‘epic’ cartoon;
    thes are my REAL questions as I explained before;

    • Martin van Etten
      You ask

      so please answer the question whether is is normal to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism or not;
      why they are portrayed as ‘christians’ with crosses and why Obama is helped by this man in black ready to cut throats;

      I am a Christian and a climate realist; i.e. I am a Christian who accepts the climate data from the real world.
      I can only answer for myself and – like you – I cannot speak for others.
      My answers to your questions are:
      I do not know if it is “normal” to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism, but it is appropriate. And the alarmists fare badly from such a comparison.
      It is a fact that Christians are among those being killed by ISIS (although ISIS is killing more Muslims than Christians).
      The cartoon does NOT show “Obama is helped by this man in black ready to cut throats”. It shows President Obama being concerned at putative and trivial sea level rise while ignoring the “man in black” who represents ISIS. Indeed, that is clearly the point of the cartoon.
      The cartoon is correct and your strange interpretation of it is mistaken, especially in light of the history of ISIS which was created by the Western World, the NATO alliance and the US. President Obama is the main leader of the Western World, the NATO alliance and the US.
      Please try to ask sensible questions in future.

      • Advice for the little chirrun: Dawn is a trigger warning.
        Hey, if you take ‘ice’ out of ‘advice’ you get ‘adv’ which is an English abbreviation of ‘advertisement’. I hope you like that.

      • If you take ‘ice’ out of ‘entice’ you get ‘ent’, and if it’s moving, beware.

    • Martin says:
      …dbstealey who now left the discussion
      You sound hopeful about that, Martin. But I’m still here.
      First, about the cartoon: I like it. It makes a good point. As they say, your mileage may vary (YMMV). To each his own, etc. But there is certainly no need for Anthony to apologize for publishing it. YMMV.
      Next, skeptics are not “deniers”. That is deserving of an apology from you, because equating those you disagree with as being Holocaust deniers is unacceptable.
      Finally, you ask…
      …whether is is normal to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism or not… and why this Watts is calling this cartoon an ‘epic’ cartoon…
      IMHO, it is normal to compare them. The only difference is in the matter of degree. It is a fact that ISIS is slaughtering Christians because of their faith, and it is a fact that many climate alarmists are calling for the imprisonment (or worse) of those they disagree with.
      Unless you have no problem with that, don’t you think it is you who owes an apology? Not that I expect an apology from you; I don’t. But your thin-skinned concern over a cartoon puts you on the same level as perenially ‘concerned Muslims’.

  43. @ stelely May 29, 2015 at 9:38 am:
    “You sound hopeful”
    not at all, I thought it was quite impolite to leave the discussion not answering my critic remarks (you are still not doing, stealey)
    second to that: you like the cartoon? that’s up to you, there seem to be ‘christians’ here that also like the cartoon;
    well, I think its inapropriate, I think it illustrates some kind of fundamentalism attitude you can feel everywhere in this website;
    “it is you (me) who owes an apology?”
    this is turning the world upside down! its not me who started the insulting;
    not being able to apologize for smearing climate’alarmists’ says something about you;
    stealey: I critisized you for introducing the wrong images into the discussion (sea ice AREA while talking about VOLUME), well where is your ‘defense’ for doing so, you are avoiding an answer!, are you still going to explain why you are trying to mislead me and other readers here?;
    holocaust…! you compare yourself to holocaust victims??? you are giving yourself to much credit..!
    you are just a last pocket of resistance against the science of climatechange…
    go on, walk freely around, shout it from the rooftoops, we are not going to put you in jail, we are only commenting and putting your remarks in perspective;
    go ahead if you don’t see your are loosing ground…
    you call this a ‘wild claim’:
    “The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.” (beginning of the article)
    please do calculate that 3.4 mm sea level a year now, is MORE than one feet a century;
    please do know that that Dutch sea level specialists (- 50 % of our country is below sea level -) for years allready count with at least 0.85 – 1.50 * in 2100 if nothing is done to the man mad global warming;
    you can deny all these facts about but sea level rise but I rather trust our professors and specialists than some anonymi as stealey, kim or courtney, not to mention the initiators of this discussion here, some Rick McKee and mr. Anthony Watts;
    * see my article
    unfortunately for you only in Dutch- but based onthe AR 4 section on sea level rise, Stern review and Pik calculations by Rahmstorf in the respected blog;
    the basic calculation here is this:
    59 + 20 + 20 = 99 centimeter
    59 AR4
    20 because of expected temp rise until 2100
    20 because of the melting of Greenland (not in the 59 cm from the AR4

  44. PS: in redoing the calculation, I see now that I made a mistake in 2007:
    59 + 20 + 20 = 99 centimeter
    should be read as
    59 + 20 + 29 =108 centimeter
    that is 29 cm for the melting of ice on Greenland + Antarctica
    it’s not the full four feet (122 cm), on that I can agree with you;
    MY conclusion those days was: “one meter or even more sea level can be extected until 2100” seems still to be correct as is the Obama claim;

  45. @ kim
    the 59 cm is a result of the melting of glacier ice and other processes, not related to the southpole; this is of course mentioned in the AR4 sea level rise section;
    start reading;
    in the desert, where the cartoon (and the sea level rise) are situated, it is not freezing: see the picture on top of this page;

    • Maybe not, Martin, but you’ve failed to show that the decline in Southern Ice, whether by dehiscence, thinning, melting, or calving has changed from its natural variability, nor have you shown locales where accumulation is occurring.
      Even were there definitive proof of man-caused dangerous melting, what could you do about it short of a crash nuclear regimen to replace fossil fuel power generation? One perhaps overhasty from exaggerated fears of melting.
      Without attribution you have an extremely weak case for action. Even with attribution to man, you must show the effect to be dangerous, and a cost effect method to avert the danger.
      So please, less with the cartoonish outlook; it’s tasteless.

  46. @kim
    “Even with attribution to man, you must show the effect to be dangerous, and a cost effect method to avert the danger.”
    all too easy people forget that we live below sea level and that the Dutch are paying allready billions to keep the water out;
    any sea level rise will cost us much more extra;

    • Imagine had your Dutch ancestors appealed to modern methods to moderate sea level rise.

      • Heh, like appealing to the guilty consciences of their cousins ‘crost the North Sea.
        That would have helped at a particularly high tide.
        But, carry on.

  47. Sorry, no change from natural variability, no acceleration of sea level rise, no danger except to those distracted and distracting from the encroaching problem.

  48. Sorry, Marten, you’re an alarmist grasping the wrong end of the stick with which to beat the problem. Sure, you and I have different understandings of the meanings and the tastefulness of this cartoon.

  49. @ kim,
    sorry kim, stop writing! I concluded that it is useless to communicate with you, so I wrote:
    over and out;
    in radio language this means: finito la comedia!
    over and out!

    • I appreciate that the Dutch are aiding the Bengalis with some of the problems of estuary and delta change as land and sea settle and rise.
      In some situations, yours may be one, it is inevitable that sea barriers must gradually be built higher, thicker, and wider, and that has been so for a long time.
      Were I in your situation, and faced with what you fear, I’d consider moving. It is poignant to consider giving up one’s home sweet home, though, and you do have my sympathy.
      In fact, I believe you can relax, and adapt; we’ve time.

Comments are closed.