Original image: Man at bridge holding head with hands and screaming. By Edvard Munch - WebMuseum at ibiblioPage: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/Image URL: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37610298

NOAA: “The world is trying to reduce [CO2] emissions, and you just don’t see it”

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to NOAA scientist Pieter Tans, “if you’re measuring the atmosphere, you’re not seeing anything happening right now in terms of change.”.

Climate scientists warn of increased climate change events as carbon emissions fail to drop

Posted Sat 4 Jun 2022 at 11:47am

Emissions across the globe continue to rise despite nations committing to cut them.

Key points:

  • The pandemic cut global carbon emissions in 2020, but they rebounded last year
  • Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer 
  • May is the peak for global carbon dioxide emissions

Scientists are warning of increased climate change events including heat waves, flooding and droughts if carbon emissions are not cut. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its long-time monitoring station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, averaged 421 parts per million of carbon dioxide for the month of May, which is when the crucial greenhouse gas hits its yearly high.

“The world is trying to reduce emissions, and you just don’t see it,” said NOAA climate scientist Pieter Tans.

“In other words, if you’re measuring the atmosphere, you’re not seeing anything happening right now in terms of change.”

University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles said without cuts in carbon pollution “we will see ever more damaging levels of climate change, more heat waves, more flooding, more droughts, more large storms and higher sea levels.

The slowdown from the pandemic did cut global carbon emissions a bit in 2020, but they rebounded last year.

Both changes were small compared to how much carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere each year, especially considering that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds to a thousand years, Mr Tans said.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-04/carbon-dioxide-emissions-hold-firm/101126312

If the Pandemic lockdowns barely made a dent, I think we can guess about the kinds of crazy societal shutdowns these guys would like to see, to achieve their CO2 reductions. A near total shutdown of vehicle use barely dented global CO2 emissions, but I guess every bit helps /sarc. And you can forget about putting up that thermostat up in winter.

The other interesting point is, CO2 levels today, right now, are now 421ppm, at least 1.5x pre-industrial levels (421 / 280 = 1.5).

Where are the superstorms and mega droughts? Climate alarmists keep promising something scary will happen, but so far the only noticeable impact of all this CO2 is a slight rise in global temperature, which according to the Potsdam Institute might have prevented the start of a new ice age. The CO2 is also causing a measurable greening of the Earth. Seems like all wins so far.

Any flood issues caused by a few inches of sea level rise can easily be countered by incremental urban renovation projects, like the “raising Chicago” project our ancestors executed in the 1850s to mitigate flooding in Chicago’s low laying districts. If raising entire buildings seems a bit much, we could go for Seattle’s less costly flood mitigation solution, raising the roads but leaving the buildings as is.

My point is if our ancestors in the 1800s could affordably raise entire cities out of flood zones, I’m pretty sure we have the technology and resources to do the same today.

Storm risk is also manageable. Even if there is an uptick in storm activity, there are plenty of places which already experience substantial storm activity, which can provide learnings for other towns. My edge of tropics hometown regularly experiences ferocious storms which would count as super storms in more temperate regions, multiple inches of rain in a few minutes, but our town planners figured out a solution – you could almost walk down the drains under my street. After the water drains away, bonus, I don’t have to water the garden that week.

Sooner or later the general public will stop listening to these nonsensical warnings of impending climate doom, but until then we need to push back against gullible politicians and well meaning alarmists, many of whom continue to cling to climate models even their alarmist colleagues suggest are producing implausible results.

4.8 31 votes
Article Rating
152 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
June 5, 2022 2:08 pm

It is not as if the Little Ice Age had good weather, so any change is for the worse.

HotScot
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 5, 2022 3:14 pm

It did have good weather, it just didn’t have as much CO2 as we do now to encourage crop growth during that good weather.

Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 6:01 pm

Then why did burn 50,000+ witches to try and stop the glaciers from growing so fast?

Reply to  John Shewchuk
June 5, 2022 6:13 pm

Clearly there were too many witches, just like too many Christians, too many people to be tortured. It’s all about arbitrary perceptions by those in charge in order to cow and oppress the population.

Oldseadog
Reply to  HotScot
June 6, 2022 7:47 am

Why on earth has HotScot’s accurate comment been given some negatives? During the LIA it was a little cooler than it is now but people still lived through it and there were still some sunny days in summer.

Steve Case
June 5, 2022 2:11 pm

Sooner or later the general public will stop listening to these nonsensical warnings of impending climate doom,
___________________________________________________________

Uh huh, I just watched a couple walking their dog past the house, and they were wearing masks. Nice bright sunny day, the morning rain has moved on and these two are so scared our of their wits, that they were wearing masks. Actually they were virtue signaling, but the effect is the same.

OK. that’s not “Climate Change” fear, but it’s media induced fear just the same. The general public seems to be glued to the evening news and watches, slack jawed, taking in everything as gospel when in reality, it’s a pack of lies.

John Bell
Reply to  Steve Case
June 5, 2022 2:39 pm

I keep seeing a few people wearing masks alone in a car, alone on the sidewalk…I guess it gives them a sense of safety and structure and a sense that they are being good serfs and following orders. I think it is pathetic.

Steve Case
Reply to  John Bell
June 5, 2022 3:08 pm

 I think it is pathetic.
_____________________________________________________

I’m going with virtue signaling. “Look how progressive and inclusive we are, you should follow our lead. We are ever-so correct!” is the message I get. Why would two people parade down the street like that for all to see?

Yesterday at an indoor function for the grandchildren everyone was required to masked up (I complied) and then they served cookies and cup cakes and we all took our masks off!.

What’s that Chinese curse? “May you live in interesting times.”

.KcTaz
Reply to  Steve Case
June 5, 2022 11:29 pm

I have an old friend who lives in the Seattle area, USA. She has flat-out told me she and her husband wear masks so no one will think they are Republicans. It’s a sign of being a good little Liberal and obeying. She’s smarter than this but her brain has been hijacked.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Steve Case
June 6, 2022 7:49 am

It isn’t a curse, it is a hope.

Mike McHenry
Reply to  John Bell
June 5, 2022 3:11 pm

I live in rural New Jersey USA I see people walking rural roads with masks on bizarre

yirgach
Reply to  Mike McHenry
June 6, 2022 9:28 am

I see the same in Vermont. a lot of them riding bicycles while masked in the middle of rural nowhere!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John Bell
June 5, 2022 3:28 pm

A simple fact. We now know that COVID-19 is mostly aerosolized, like flu. Unlike the common cold. Countless studies have shown masks are ineffective against flu. So also ineffective against COVID. Fauci was and remains an idiot.

As further visualization, a cold virus spread by non-aerosolized sneeze droplets has droplets on the order of mask pore dimension (1-3 micron), so masks help. An aerosolized virus has exhale ‘droplets’ on the order of the same size as the virus (1/10 micron), so masks are ineffective. The apt analogy is that chain link fences do NOT inhibit mosquitoes.

Paul S.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2022 4:10 pm

Fauci was and remains an idiot”
At the start of the pandemic, Fauci correctly said that masks were useless and not warranted. As soon as his handlers got ahold of him, he changed his tune. Masks do nothing for covid, but they do cause fear and panic among the masses and gives bureaucrats control over the public along with ability to punish non-wearers.

Steve Case
Reply to  Paul S.
June 5, 2022 4:25 pm

At the start of the pandemic, Fauci correctly said that masks were useless and not warranted. As soon as his handlers got ahold of him, he changed his tune.
______________________________________________

Anyone with any common sense picked up on that one.

.KcTaz
Reply to  Steve Case
June 5, 2022 11:38 pm

Common sense is not very common anymore.

AndyHce
Reply to  Steve Case
June 6, 2022 12:10 am

Not so. In my experience the believers remember Fauci simply saying the masks had to be saved for medical workers rather than what he actually said, that mask wearing by the general public has no value and besides, we might need them for medical personal.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  AndyHce
June 10, 2022 10:35 am

He and others actually went further at one point and said masks worn by the public are likely to be harmful. At the same time, they were also saying that health care workers need them or they will die.
The public health authorities collectively did as bad a job as was possible for them to do on prety much every aspect of this entire episode.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
.KcTaz
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2022 11:37 pm

I read a study that masks make the entire aerosolize thing worse. With no masks, droplets with the virus fall to the ground within 3 feet. Masks aerosolize the droplets and, thus, allowing the virus to go much farther and become airborne and stay suspended in the air to be breathed in.
As a retired Respiratory Therapist, I never, ever went into an Isolation Room with a patient with an infectious respiratory virus wearing anything but a specially fit, tested, heavy-duty mask, now replaced by N95s. N95s only work if properly fitted and worn once and properly discarded. See FDA on this.

N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks
https://bit.ly/3phPWFC
EXCERPT:
Surgical Masks
A surgical mask is a loose-fitting, disposable device that creates a physical barrier between the mouth and nose of the wearer and potential contaminants in the immediate environment. Surgical masks are regulated under 21 CFR 878.4040. Surgical masks are not to be shared and may be labeled as surgical, isolation, dental, or medical procedure masks. They may come with or without a face shield. These are often referred to as face masks, although not all face masks are regulated as surgical masks.
Surgical masks are made in different thicknesses and with different ability to protect you from contact with liquids. These properties may also affect how easily you can breathe through the face mask and how well the surgical mask protects you.
If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others.

yirgach
Reply to  .KcTaz
June 6, 2022 9:39 am

My better half who is a microbiologist, does TB research for clinical studies. Over the years she has visited Level 3 containment labs on all the major continents. Always has to wear N95, sometimes all day and once in a while in a bunny suit. She used to get N95 surgical fit tested at a local hospital, but now the nearest testing is a 200 mile round trip so the fit testing has been canned…

Mason
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 6, 2022 7:44 am

I agree. I have engineered filtration systems most of my 50 years as an engineer. I use the example “trying to stop the Covid with masks is like trying to stop mosquitos with chicken wire screens.”

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 6, 2022 1:26 pm

I must remember that analogy, for future use when masks are mandated by the ignorant!

TBeholder
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 8, 2022 4:43 am

If you think mosquitoes are an “apt analogy” for viruses, maybe you watched too many silly cartoons. :]
Anyway, what matters is that slightly reducing the infection rates during incubation period is a long-obsolete goal either way. COVID-19 was a thing in 2019 and in 2020, but by now it mutated into something else. And now that what’s left is not bioweapon grade anymore — a dozen more weird SARS strains running around, a dozen less, it’s all the same. You cannot bless every sneeze.
It’s only relevant for virtue signaling and skullduggery.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 9, 2022 9:55 am

How thick is a chain link fence compared to the holes?
And how thick is a spun woven polypropylene mask compared to the average space between the fibers?

Consider a piece of woven cotton gauze vs a piece of rolled cotton, i.e. standard surgical dressing (single layer), vs the stuff cotton balls are made of but in a rolled up sheet. If you put a handfull of sand on some gauze, it will fall right through, but if you put a handful of sand on a sheet of rolled cotton, none of it will go through, even though the space between the fibers of cotton are large compared to the sand grains. Because it is not the average seperation of the fibers that ultimately determines penetration.

The analogy of a chain link fence is a terrible one when the actual situation is accounted for.
More like a mosquito trying to get through a mile thick stack of chain link fences.
If the mosquito was magnetic.
Because high quality N-95 respirators are millmeters thick, IOW thousands of microns thick,and also carry a static electrical change which cause tiny particles of dust or viruses or bacteria to adhere to the fibers, in addition to the random pattern of the spun woven material, multiplied by it’s thickness, an effective means of capuring even tiny particles that are smaller than the average seperation of any two fibers.

What actually is ridiculous is anyone speaking about mask effectiveness without specifiy exactly what sort of face covering they are talking about.
Since there are no actual standards when these mandates are issued, it is 100% insane and inane.
If they specified that everyone has to wear a 3M or equivalent N-95 or better respirator, it would make sense.
Better still if there were rules about what kind of standards anyone making face coverings must manufacture them to.
The material used for crappy surgical style, around the ear looped, loose fitting face masks, spun woven polypropylene, is the same raw material whether it is made to a high standard or to no standard.

And it is not like the government agencies do not know how to specify or enforce standards. Every industry in which workers are exposed to anything hazardous has extensive and very specific standards for PPE.
In particular, standards for respiratory protection, whether for dust or vapors of biological hazards have a long and very well understood and described history.
But somehow, in this case, no one has bothered to talk about standards, let alone specify any. The way the mandates are handed down, any hunk of cloth across the face is deemed acceptable to meet the requirement.

What makes masks worn by the general public nearly worthless is related to what is broadly referred to as “compliance”.

What compliance means is, how well does a person adhere to what are known to be best practices with regard to wearing the PPE. It coveres everything, from fit, to properly and continuously wearing it, correct donning and doffing procedures, etc.
For example, it does no good to wear a mask if you occasionally pull it down and wipe your eyes with bare hands, touch the mask, and then pull it back on.
Or wear it when you are walking around by yourself, but pull it down when you come face to face with another person and need to have a conversation.
And yet these are just the sorts of things we see people do all the time.
Another common thing is wearing them below the nose…when it is a fact that respiratory viruses do not have much chance of infecting a person via the oral route, but have a high chance if inhaled into the nose. Of course, the eyes are another major route of ingestion, so not wearing eye protection is another way any benefit of a barrier on the face is rendered of little value. Especially since most people do not keep in mind such things as never touching your eyes with your hands when there is a virus going around, unless you have just properly washed them, etc.

Another factor I have not seen mentioned in a while is regarding the around the ear designs. This is known to not be capable of pressing the mask tightly enough to the face to prevent air from simply going right around the thing, instead of through it. And yet everyone (those still wearing a mask that is) seems to have adopted this type of design for some inexplicable reason.

In fact, along with proper PPE, it has always been know that it is just as important to have proper and reinforced instructions on proper usage and best practices, as well as having, as noted PROPER PPE. Not just any old thing you can fit over your mouth and nose.

I cannot figure out why people who are still worried about covid to the degree they are still wearing a mask, are not even bothering to wear the ones that might make a difference. I am sure that this also means most of them have no idea about properly wearing them, compliance, being the most important factor in their effectiveness, ahead of even making sure the right ones are being worn.

After all this time, there is no reason whatsoever that if mandates are even going to be considered, that there has not been a mandate to manufacture enough of the only ones which are known and tested to have a quantifiable value vs biological hazards, and specifically a known value vs respiratory viruses, which is a medical grade N-95 respirator.

In any case, the logical thing to do is make sure peoplpe can get their hands on a ready supply of inexpensive or free high quality respirators, and let anyone who feels the need to do so, be able to get and wear a fresh one whenever they want, and leave everyone else alone…just as has always been done with any hazards.

Just as an aside, no one should, IMO, be confused about any of this after all this time. Including the fact that one does not have to prevent any ingestion in order for barrier protection to have a large benefit.
Getting a smaller infective dose is highly correlated with getting a milder case.
IOW, wearing a high quality mask might not prevent someone from ingesting enough virions to show a positive test, but if properly fitted and worn, it will surely greatly increase the odds of the wearer getting an asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic case.

This was evident by early Summer of 2020, when people working in packinghouses were getting infected even though they had masks on at work, but it was shown that the incidence of mild or no symptoms was over 90% in these people. Far higher than the average of such for people not wearing masks.

In any case, at this point the rate of seropositivity in the US has got to be way over 95%. Anyone worried about it has no excuse to not have gotten multiple vaccine doses. And anyone who has, and who thinks they are still in some sort of danger if everyone ELSE in the world is not masked or vaccinated, is just an effin dope.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 9, 2022 10:14 am

BTW, here is a micrograph of an N-95 respirator. It is obvious it is nothing like a chain link fence. More like a heap of rope than a rope net.
More like wad of cotton than a sheet of gauze.
They are very thick compared to something like a virus, and they are also electrostatically charged, which was a huge breakthrough in the 1990s and is proven to make a huge difference, no matter what is being filtered.
There are filters that will remove vapors after all, and they are small molecules.

There is much to be critical of re Fauci and the CDC and NIH and WHO.
They have shown themselves to be unreliable and poorly informed and politically motivated hacks, for one thing.
There is no reason to repeat nonsense implying that all respiratory protection is somehow equivalent, and that all “masks” are like trying to keep out a mosquito using a chain link fence.

SEM200mu.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 9, 2022 10:20 am

I should correct something I said above.
I referred to the material used as “spun woven”.
I misspoke. I should have said the material is made by a melt blowing process…melt blown.
They are not woven at all.
My mistake. I have not talked about this for well over a year.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Rod Evans
Reply to  John Bell
June 5, 2022 11:58 pm

Hey John, look on the positive. The mask wearers are informing the rest of us to be aware. They are saying, ‘give me plenty of space, because I am not very intelligent and may be prone to doing something else that is stupid’
Almost as good as wearing a flashing warning light.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Steve Case
June 5, 2022 4:14 pm

They also think Bite Me’s doing a great job!

maskdriv.jpg
Reply to  Steve Case
June 5, 2022 6:15 pm

I debit those wearing masks outside 20 IQ points. Their IQ might be higher, but they clearly not using what they have, so their IQ is indeed lower.

ATheoK
Reply to  Steve Case
June 5, 2022 8:14 pm

and they were wearing masks. Nice bright sunny day, the morning rain has moved on and these two are so scared our of their wits, that they were wearing masks.”

Masks like this one?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUfl9GRWYAE5bhj?format=jpg&name=medium

.KcTaz
Reply to  ATheoK
June 5, 2022 11:45 pm

Well, that one does about as much good as the others, short of an N95, if properly fitted, handled, discarded and worn once. Just ask the FDA.
N95 Respirators, Surgical Masks, and Face Masks
https://bit.ly/3phPWFC

AndyHce
Reply to  ATheoK
June 6, 2022 12:53 am

The best one I saw was a young woman wearing a mask of a grid of rhinestones. Her face was covered, in a manner of speaking, but her features were clearly enough visible through the thing..

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  AndyHce
June 10, 2022 10:37 am

This was my favorite:
comment image

Steve Case
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 6, 2022 12:43 am

And those who continue to mask up, maybe there is a reason.
__________________________________________________

For those in positions similar to your friend’s wife, the precautions are no doubt way more than wearing a cheap mask. The couple walking the dog yesterday afternoon looked relatively young and athletic. The notion that they might have some other reason for masking up other than following the bullshit from the Enviromarxists is remote.

Steve Case
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 6, 2022 1:55 am

Just like me, they must see lots of people who don’t mask up anymore. So far it looks like they don’t feel stupid. Smug would be a better guess.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 10, 2022 10:51 am

Also possible they live with or are in daily contact with a person who is severely immunocompromised.
It makes no sense for people who are vaxxed to care about people who are not vaxxed.
Similarly, it makes no sense, to me anyway, to care about people who are doing whatever…wearing masks, not getting vaccinated, getting quadruple vaxxed, being a hermit, spitting in peoples faces (as long as they aint spitting in mine), wearing a mask except when they come face to face with someone to converse, or whatever.
Remember at the press conference by public health officials way back at the very beginning of the pandemic, and they were telling people to do things like wash hands a lot and do not touch the face, etc…and the person standing behind the speaker, a public health leader (Hah!), was touching his face and rubbing his eyes over and over again. I think maybe all of them did.
Or when FJB walked up to a lectern to speak wearing a mask, and took it off to cough on his hand?
The point is, there is too much jackassery going around for it to be notable anymore. It has been going on from the get go, among nearly everyone, in any way one can think of.

But at the same time, regarding any particular stranger one might pass by…

At any given time, as many as 10% of people in a population may be have some immune impairment. People with any of the many cancers, or taking steroids, or on any of the many immunomodulator drugs for such things as psoriasis, lupus, rhematoid arthritis, etc. Or chemotherapy for something like hep B or Multiple Sclerosis, etc.
Also diseases like AIDS, or who know or related to someone who has any such disease, etc. Diseases such as measles turn off the immune system during part of the infective cycle.
Older people have progressively weaker ability to generate an acquired immune response, and at some point the immunity they have becomes less and less effective.
Tons of people have things like diabetes or COPD that might make them very vulnerable to any respiratory infection…

If they are not being one of the jerks who tell others what to do, I personally barely notice them most of the time, and if I do notice, I barely think much of it…like the other day I saw a guy ride by my house in a very sparsely inhabited part of Florida, in bright sunshine and with high heat and humidity, and he was wearing a huge clothe type mask…the black kind with a huge headband. Whatever.
Who cares.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:00 am

There are entire videos of it:
https://youtu.be/mA1wqjaeKj0

Kevin
Reply to  Steve Case
June 7, 2022 9:21 am

Just yesterday I saw a young man wearing a mask walking down my street delivering food to a neighbor. I yelled out to him that he doesn’t need to wear a mask in the neighborhood because COVID has been eliminated from the area. We had eliminated it thru the UV rays from the sun and the constant mixing of the air. He shrugged his shoulder’s and continued on his merry way wearing his mask.

markl
June 5, 2022 2:20 pm

So more CO2 is being added to the atmosphere despite all the world’s efforts to reduce it? Maybe fossil fuel use isn’t increasing it but natural forces like in the past. If more effort were put into adaptation than mitigation maybe people would feel better knowing all bases are being covered and the world could maintain their economies. Just saying.

Editor
Reply to  markl
June 5, 2022 3:19 pm

“world” is an odd word to use, to represent way below half of fossil fuel usage. A better term might be Visigoths – VIrtue-SIGnalling with OTHer people’s money.

.KcTaz
Reply to  markl
June 5, 2022 11:47 pm

Maybe, instead of humans and fossil fuels, it would do more good to be talking to these guys”
Termite Farts
Termites produce more CO2 each year than all living things combined

http://bit.ly/2MOUPRm

Termite farts = 12,600,000,000 metric tons of CO₂
Termites also emit 50,000,000,000 metric tons of CO₂
Zimmerman et al 1984
Human emissions are 24,000,000,000 metric tons
Termites are responsible for 260% more global warming than humans!
Best case scenario, termites emit 200% more than humans.
Worst case scenario, it’s almost 900% more

http://bit.ly/2KKV7YY

Doonman
Reply to  .KcTaz
June 6, 2022 8:59 pm

This has been known since 1982. Science 05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563

When was the last time you heard any climate scientist say “We must reduce the number of world termites”

TBeholder
Reply to  .KcTaz
June 8, 2022 4:46 am

Yes, but most humans don’t eat termites. Unlike with cows. So nobody cares.

AndyHce
Reply to  markl
June 6, 2022 12:15 am

Despite the efforts of China, India, Russia, and most of the third wold nations?

Editor
June 5, 2022 2:29 pm

Eric ==> Not to pop your bubble, but we are way beyond “raising Chicago”. They raisied Chicago because they built in a swamp next to a lake that rises and falls by a few feet periodically. There was no “downhill” for their sewage to flow.

There will be no raising of Miami….Miami and Miami Beach are lost causes and will have to be abandoned in the long run — but then again, the sea is only rising by 8-12 inches a century, so that still have some time to do something — maybe diking as in Holland.

What we an do is stop building cities and billions of dollars of infrastructure in harms way — far too close to present day highest high water.

HotScot
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 5, 2022 2:53 pm

Quite why anyone inland takes any notice of the concept of rising sea level is beyond me.

Besides, how on earth does sea level rise.

Melt all the damn se ice you want, SLR isn’t going to change much. So how the hell does a warmer sea rise enough to melt the ice on the Antarctic continent that’s well above sea level.

By the time atmospheric temperatures rise enough to melt Antarctic ice existing in an atmosphere that’s -40ºC, SE England will be enjoying peak summer temperatures of 70ºC.

Sea level rise will be the least of our worries.

Lil-Mike
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 3:53 pm

Because there’s enough ice to raise the sea level several hundred feet.

HotScot
Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 5, 2022 4:09 pm

Enough sea ice? That’s novel, please explain how that happens.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 4:30 pm

Melting a lot of ice resting above sea level will be a problem!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 5, 2022 4:39 pm

Sure, if temperatures were to increase significantly and remain at high levels for thousands of years. Read more and worry less, Lil-Mike.

roaddog
Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 5, 2022 11:19 pm

That’s why I never put ice in my liquor. Because when the ice melts the glass overflows.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 10, 2022 11:06 am

Probably if it ever warms enough to make a difference in the frozen wastelands, more land will become usable than is lost to SLR.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
HotScot
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 5, 2022 3:12 pm

My theory is as follows and largely conforms to Occam’s razor using the IPCC’s own numbers.

Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:

Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostok Ice Core).

Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Mauna Loa)

410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.

That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.

Furthermore, were we to present Roy Spencers temperature graph on a representative scale, temperature variations would be all but indistinguishable over the periods shown.

Some people understand the importance of compressed scales, to show fractions of a degree over a monthly period in visual terms, but 90% of the world’s population does not have a science qualification to their name. They imagine wild temperature swings because a graph describing temperatures to one hundredth of a ºC is distorted to emphasise fractional changes to scientists who, should, understand the significance.

We really have got to stop playing the alarmist’s game.

Simonsays
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 4:43 pm

I thought the alarmists argument was humans are responsible for 100% of the increase. That is if there were no humans there would be no increase.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simonsays
June 5, 2022 7:59 pm

110%

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 4:55 pm

Bad math, HotScot: “410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.

IIRC, Man’s contribution is approximately 3% of the annual CO2 flow, not the total change in atmospheric concentrations. About half of Man’s annual contributions are reduced by increased plant growth’s CO2 usage, which is enabled by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

I don’t remember exact estimates of increasing CO2 outgassing from the oceans in response to a warmed world, but it is far less than Man’s CO2 output. In relation to documented increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, its Man wot dunnit.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2022 6:45 am

Yup the climate crazies can shut down all CO2 emissions, sending us back to a medieval lifestyle and it will have zero effect on global CO2 levels – it’s just a perfectly natural process in response to warming post Little Ice Age. Presumably when they realise this, they’ll come up with some suicidal plan to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere – then we’ll really be screwed.

Fraizer
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 4:57 pm

But there is Money to be made – MONORAIL

Streetcred
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 5, 2022 3:24 pm

You only have to look at the ‘new’ beaches on the southern end of Australia’s Gold Coast to appreciate what longshore drift can achieve.

Editor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 6, 2022 8:17 am

Eric ==> Look at my essay Miami’s Vice. The infrastructure already built a foot or less above Mean Higher High Water, and the infrastructure (sewers, water and utility lines, etc) already far below today’s sea level spells heir doom. Literally thousands and thousands of homes intentionally built at altitudes to allow homeowners to step into their boats along dug canals connecting to the sea. Much of this development already built on sand, collapsing ancient coral rock or fill….

Hopeless.

Lil-Mike
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 5, 2022 3:51 pm

Kip, Respectfully,

Step back and look at what Sacramento and Seattle did in the 19th century. They raised the streets only. Yet, this has the effect of raising the whole city. All ground level floors become defacto “basements”, all previous second level floors become the new ground floor, thus moving the city up 10′.

Granted, this solution doesn’t work so well for single story buildings.

* I’m using the US definition of second level here.

RevJay4
Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 5, 2022 4:19 pm

Seattle even had a guided tour of the former first floors of some buildings. Quite interesting.

.KcTaz
Reply to  RevJay4
June 6, 2022 12:08 am

Yes, it is. It seems, the problem was the crapper i.e. toilet, not sea levels. When the indoor toilet was invented by Thomas Crapper, everytime the tide came in, the toilets overflowed. That’s why they raised the buildings to the second floor. If you ever take the tour, you will see toilets with 3 steps up to use them. That was the temporary fix until they just raised the streets.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  .KcTaz
June 10, 2022 11:14 am

How many did they install below high tide before anyone noticed?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:15 am

Seems to me I would notice within one tide cycle of the first install.

Editor
Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 6, 2022 8:20 am

Lil-Mike ==> Truthfully, the people and businesses (in effect the city) will move to higher land. Some will try to maintain their positions on the shore but the sea is unrelenting. Add in hurricanes and you see the whole story.

Read : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 10, 2022 11:20 am

Supposedly, the oean has risen something like a foot over the past 100-120+ years, and yet photos of Miami Beach and nearly anywhere else we have old pictures, show zero discernable encroachment of the ocean.
In Miami, all of the streets and buildings are furhter from the ocean than they were 50, 75, 100 years ago, and more.
So when does anyone think that anyone is gonna have to move cities to higher land?
Stroms will inundate every mile of coastline, on average, long before any possible flooding due simply to “sea level rise”.

miami-beach-facebookJumbo.jpg
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:22 am

Here are a few more, one per comment post because they are files on my computer.
(Can we copy and paste photos and imbed them within a comment?)

Key West then and now growing.jpg
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:47 am

I have an entire file of these:

E11AzHMXEAUL-9v.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:49 am

So anyway, this gives an idea of the odds any particular location will avoid being hit directly by a strom over many decades of time:

FA3Np5oWQAUYDjI.jpg
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:49 am

And this gives an idea what happens right where one hits directly:

E-Csy9UXsAQegyf.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 11:50 am

All that anyone needs to do is stop rebuilding after storms wreck a coastal area.

Editor
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 10, 2022 2:24 pm

Nicholas ==> In general, and that’s a very loose general, global sea levels have risen about 8-10 inches since 1880 or so. This is not really in dispute and is not dangerous in any way. But it is relentless.

Miami beaches have undergone replenishment — both natural and man-engineered. The width of beaches is not an indicator of sea level rise or lack of sea level rise. Storms both remove and deliver sand to beaches.

The main threat to Miami, if you would take time to read the essay I linked for your, is storm surge coupled to hurricanes.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Lil-Mike
June 10, 2022 11:13 am

Nearly every house in Florida is a single story.
And wherever the ground level is, is a few inches to a few feet above the water table for half the year, so having basements is worse than worthless.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 5, 2022 4:36 pm

Kip, is it your or the investors’ risk? Who cares if in the long term (in which we will all be dead) if some investors (likely Chinese and Indian) will have to spend more to protect their own valuable property or abandon it?

If the governments are worried about future public property, just don’t build there and avoid rebuilding when the existing facilities reach the end of their useful lives, long before SLR can swamp them. Or is it the fact that the whole CAGW push for Net Zippy is a crony capitalist scam?

I know, I know: That’s too simplistic. But it points one in the right direction when people start crying about SLR that the Western world can’t affect in the slightest. Its adaption, not the King Canute game of Net Zippy.

curly
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 5, 2022 6:00 pm

Don’t build on a flood plain. (and for the last decade or two, in the US, don’t depend on the ACoE to implement effective flood control)

Don’t build on barrier islands (hello US New Jersey and much of the East coast).

And most of all, if you do those two stupid things, don’t expect me to insure your mistake, either through private insurance premiums or “disaster relief” from the Fed gov’t.

One of the highlights of the Seattle underground tour was the story about toilets flowing backwards, which encouraged some changes. Apparently they were a lot more pragmatic and honest in Seattle back then. Of course, when s**t is flowing uphill, it should get your attention.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  curly
June 6, 2022 11:04 am

Well Obama bought a 10 million dollar estate right on the water in Martha’s Vineyard. He’s not worried and neither should anyone. A 2 mm rise per year is the equivalent of 8 inches per century. I think we can handle that.

Editor
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 6, 2022 8:23 am

Dave ==> In the United States, the people pay when there are large disasters. It is our tax money that gets spent when the Feds declare a disaster an send in the National Guard, FEMA, etc .

Miami is already a disaster zone — its just that the disaster hasn’t happen quite yet.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 5, 2022 4:45 pm

Whatever they do, I hope they remember their past work better than Chicago!

Editor
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 6, 2022 8:27 am

Old Man ==> I meant to write about Chicago and collected tons of data last year. It is worse than you think….they have built a connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River water shed…..a system which is another un-yet-realized disaster.

drednicolson
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 5, 2022 7:47 pm

Miami is built over an aquifer that provides most of the city’s freshwater supply. As the water is pumped out, the city sinks from subsidence.

ATheoK
Reply to  drednicolson
June 5, 2022 8:32 pm

High groundwater levels around Miami make for very wet basements.

Editor
Reply to  drednicolson
June 6, 2022 8:30 am

drednicolson ==> To understand why I say what I say about Miami, go to Google Earth Pro (free download) and zoom in on Miami and its untold number of homes built along canals. If you mouse over a spot, the altitude appears on the lower right somewhere.

Not worried about Miami subsiding (and, of course, it is) — it is already disastrously low.

PCman999
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 5, 2022 8:38 pm

Why is even 30cm a lost cause for Miami? They could make a wall a couple of cement blocks high and back fill, and they would be set for 100 yrs. If the crazies are right, and a few metres turns up by 2100, abandon the first floor and back fill – not free or cheap, but certainly cheaper and doable compared to abandoning a city – over sea level rise just near the coast.

Editor
Reply to  PCman999
June 6, 2022 8:32 am

PCMan ==> Look at any high-def satellite image of Miami. The sea already flows up out of the storm drain system at highest tides…..the sea flows into the basements of homes, it washed the sail out of under homes built along canals….

AndyHce
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 6, 2022 12:17 am

How about Dubai?

Editor
Reply to  AndyHce
June 6, 2022 8:34 am

AndyHce ==> How about it? A demonstration that if money is no consideration, a nation can spend enormous sums to build almost anything? Much easier to built and island then build on top of it than to take a city, raise it up and put an island under it.

Kemaris
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 6, 2022 10:08 am

Is that you, Paul Ehrlich? Didn’t you get enough of being catastrophically wrong with your predictions 50 years ago? Or are you hoping Miami goes away because of all the Cubans (brown people)?

Editor
Reply to  Kemaris
June 7, 2022 11:51 am

Kemaris ==> You should read before you comment. I gave the link to Miami’s Vice above. Once more, just for you:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 10, 2022 11:09 am

What is most ridiculous of all is the idea that humans can control the weather of a planet.
No one knows how to change the temp of even a small farm by even a fraction of a degree, or to cool it by same.
No one can do that.
But the politicians who know almost nothing about nearly everything, can alter the weather of an entire planet by rasing prices and taxing us into poverty?

The entire idea is so criminally insane it makes my brain itch.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
David Dibbell
June 5, 2022 2:29 pm

Also from NOAA comes a flood of data from the geostationary satellites, about which I have been commenting recently. Here again is the GOES-East “CO2” band 16 visualization of the full disk of the planet, animating 8 hours of images at 2 km resolution. This is the same band of infrared wavelengths from which unwarranted concerns of warming have arisen over emissions of CO2 and the resulting rise in concentration.

https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=48&dim=1

The radiance at 50C on the “brightness temperature” scale is 13 times the radiance at -90C. It does not end up looking like a radiative “trap” from space. The atmosphere serves as the compressible working fluid of its own high-performance heat engine operation to supply energy to the planet’s huge array of variable emitter elements.

Surely there are scientists at NOAA who grasp the implications of the resulting circulations in three dimensions. They ought to speak up. Mass and energy are constantly being transported from the equator to the poles and from the surface to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space. It does not make sense from this evidence to worry about heat energy accumulating on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from what CO2 does as a non-condensing GHG.

Last edited 2 months ago by David Dibbell
Fraizer
Reply to  David Dibbell
June 5, 2022 5:01 pm

Especially when you add water vapor into the equation and the transport of latent heat (converted to sensible heat at high altitude).

Water is an ideal working fluid for a heat engine.

RickWill
Reply to  Fraizer
June 5, 2022 6:07 pm

The heat engine is self-regulatiing. The cool end forms reflective ice, solidifying around 250K that sets a hard limit on the sunlight reaching the surface when the surface is at 303K.

It is incredibly precise and only altered slightly by the atmospheric mass.

Average heat input at the hot end of 200W/sq.m at 303K, evaporating 7kg/sq.m per day and solidifying 7kg/sq.m at the cold end at 250K radiating to space at 200W/sq.m.

This exquisite heat engine is the reason water remains as liquid on 70% of the Earth’s surface. Without the powerful negative feedback that limits the surface temperature to 303K, all the water would have boiled off eons ago and the hydrogen disassociated.

Alasdair
Reply to  RickWill
June 5, 2022 11:57 pm

Yes. The Hydrological Cycle is a Rankine Cycle and operates more or less as described above. The evaporation of water in response to heat input at constant temperature ensures that the enthalpy involved balances and is converted into increased volume rather that temperature designated as “Latent Heat”. This then gets driven up through the atmosphere by the buoyancy involved for eventual dissipation into space .

The IPCC deliberately ignores this aspect in its calculations and therefore produces the nonsense that CO2 causes the Earth to warm. The Greenhouse Effect is essentially halted by this Hydro Cycle when the atmosphere becomes saturated with water which occurs at around 4.2%.
This is the reason why the oceans which comprise around 72% of the Earth’s area never get much above 30°C in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation.
If the IPCC had been honest and included the hydro Cycle in its calculations then it would have concluded that there is NO CLIMATE CRISIS due to CO2 and thus would have been disbanded which is the motivation for its dishonesty.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Alasdair
June 6, 2022 8:43 am

Freeman Dyson criticized the climate models years ago for not being holistic and only focusing on GHG’s (primarily CO2) instead of all possible factors.

The hydro cycle you and Dave are discussing is one of the factors Dyson was talking about. There are many others, sun cycle, ocean cycles, cloud cycles, and on and on and on – none of which are even close to being handled correctly by the climate models. The climate models are just “tuned’ using parameters to make the output match to conclusion that has already been determined.

PCman999
Reply to  David Dibbell
June 5, 2022 8:44 pm

Had never thought of that! The atmosphere could be made out of spray foam and that still wouldn’t stop the heat from going sideways to the poles and then radiated out to space.

Excellent David, for bringing something new.

David Dibbell
Reply to  PCman999
June 6, 2022 3:19 am

Thank you for this reply. But I note that what I am describing is not a novel understanding of how it all works. The NOAA visualizations help show it more obviously, but NASA also knew perfectly well long ago.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/

Rud Istvan
June 5, 2022 2:39 pm

“If you are measuring the atmosphere, you are not seeing anything change”.

That ‘concern’ lamentation can be parsed two ways. Neither is good for AGW Alarmists.

  1. Yes, CO2 keeps going up just like since the Keeling curve started. And yes, May is the annual peak because then seasonal NH land plants start ‘eating’ CO2 ‘plant food’ for the summer. Even radical NH Covid-19 shutdowns barely made a dent. So the scale of misery to make a downward changing dent in the CO2 rate of increase would be off the charts horrible. Greenies wish for it, like Greta and AOC, pretending not to know the consequences.
  2. No, nothing else has changed for the worse . We still have over 4 Wadhams of late summer Arctic sea ice. Sea level rise has not accelerated. Weather extremes have not increased. Any observable changes have been for the better, like greening semiarid regions to provide more forage for cattle, sheep, and goats.

Watermelon (green outside, red inside) laments are increasingly ridiculous no matter how they are parsed.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2022 2:49 pm

Plants produce more than 10 X the CO2 that humans do. Overall, the earth produces over 95% of the annual CO2 emissions. If humans could stop ALL CO2 emissions, nothing would change. But let’s plant many more trees to REDUCE CO2… SMH.

HotScot
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2022 3:25 pm

Can we have more of your straightforward, highbrow science free commentary please Rud?

I know lots of ‘scientists’ few of them qualified in skills necessary to even begin to analyse climate, so they take no interest other than accepting what the BBC tell them.

We must stop communicating in ‘science’. We have to communicate in a language that more than 90% of the planet’s ‘non scientist’s’ exchange.

Verifiable anecdotes and personal experience is invaluable to people who will swallow the garbage the BBC and skepticalsciece serves up.

We must stop talking science, the alarmist’s talk propaganda, science is useless against it.

Dustoff82
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 7:36 pm

Exactly! Science is their smokescreen, their showstopper. You plebs can’t possibly understand our science, so just shut up. In actuality, you don’t need to understand one iota of “climate science” to use your own eyes to observe what is (and more importantly, what isn’t) happening. Do you see a climate crisis? No! Neither do I, neither does anyone. They have been predicting the apocalypse for over 30 years and none of it has come to pass. Time to declare that the king has no clothes. Stop accepting their bogus “science” and stop accepting that there is any “climate” problem to be solved. Push back, in plain language with examples that people can relate to. This has never been a scientific issue, it has always been political. You win political arguments by winning hearts and minds, not by putting people to sleep with learned scientific lectures.

PCman999
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 5, 2022 8:50 pm

While the extra CO2 has been great for the biosphere, I would still like to shut up the watermelons and get their tentacles away from our tax money and electric bills.

The yearly increase and decrease of CO2 is only 2-3ppm from balancing – instead of shutting down modern safe and healthy civilization, it would be great if the natural side of things increased its appetite for CO2 by that 3ppm.

I’d like to think that will happen anyway, as the biosphere and growing season expand due to CO2 levels and the gentle barely noticeable warming since the Little Ice Age.

stinkerp
June 5, 2022 2:44 pm

The world is trying to reduce emissions, and you just don’t see it

More evidence that radical eco-leftists (climatistas) live in an echo chamber far removed from the real world. Only a small fraction of “the world” is trying to reduce (CO2) emissions. The rest aren’t indoctrinated enough to care about such trivialities.

Gordon A. Dressler
June 5, 2022 2:48 pm

From the above article:
” ‘The world is trying to reduce emissions, and you just don’t see it,’ said NOAA climate scientist Pieter Tans.”

The world . . . as in China, India and Russia, in particular . . . is “trying” to reduce emissions?
Who knew?

However, the correlated second half of that statement “you just don’t see it” follows directly from the word “trying”.

The logic is unassailable.

Thank you, NOAA climate scientist Pieter Tans.

HotScot
June 5, 2022 2:48 pm

You can’t see it now, but it’s coming soon.

How many times have we heard this crap over the last 50 years and the worst that’s happened is the world has greened.

Do these morons never give up?*

*Stupid question. No.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 3:34 pm

They will give up when two things happen.

  1. Since the science is settled, we don’t need to fund more of it.
  2. Since renewables are now viable, they get no further subsidies.

Oh, wait a minute…

Dustoff82
Reply to  HotScot
June 5, 2022 7:40 pm

First, they are not morons. Evil, yes, but not morons. They are political activists. And why should they give up? Their scheme is working for them. They won’t give up until someone stops them. Who will that be?

PCman999
Reply to  Dustoff82
June 5, 2022 8:54 pm

Exactly! Instead of giving up and shutting up, they double down on the stupid (as someone else coined the phrase). Global warming, Climate Change, Climate Emergency!!! And the weather and biosphere are the best they’ve been in my 1/2 century of life (greener, warmer, deserts receding, food production way up, air cleaner, list goes on.)

Speed
June 5, 2022 3:14 pm
  • Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer 

The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3–3 mya) was 2–3 °C higher than today, carbon dioxide levels were the same as today, and global sea level was 25 m higher. The northern hemisphere ice sheet was ephemeral before the onset of extensive glaciation over Greenland that occurred in the late Pliocene around 3 Ma. The formation of an Arctic ice cap is signaled by an abrupt shift in oxygen isotope ratios and ice-rafted cobbles in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Ocean beds. Mid-latitude glaciation was probably underway before the end of the epoch. The global cooling that occurred during the Pliocene may have spurred on the disappearance of forests and the spread of grasslands and savannas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene
(references at the link)

There was a lot going on during the Pliocene and it lasted a long time. I don’t think anyone is predicting a 25m rise in sea levels. Interesting that cooling killed forests … or so they say.

It’s complicated.

Kevin kilty
June 5, 2022 3:58 pm

Climate crisis? What are they seeing? These guys think they are looking out a window, but they are actually watching a SciFi movie on a big screen. The concession stand in the lobby should have tipped them off.

Dave Fair
June 5, 2022 4:06 pm

CliSciFi: “Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer” Then why is it 3.9 ℃ cooler today? Could it be that CO2 is not the climate control knob? Inquiring minds want to know.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 5, 2022 5:18 pm

” Inquiring minds” also want to know why it was 1°C cooler 400Mya when CO2 was 10X today!

600MTCO2.gif
Davidf
June 5, 2022 4:08 pm

“Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer” – the implication from context being that higher CO2 caused the higher temperature. But, the invariably measured lag of CO2 to temperature, points to an exactly opposite relationship – CO2 is higher because the temperature was higher. And so we see how a perfectly correct observation is corrupted to serve a political narrative. This is the price we pay for the decline and fall of an independent, apolitical Press

Bobby K
June 5, 2022 4:24 pm

Hi, I have a whole lot of anxiety and paranoia when it comes to the topic of climate change. In fact it’s a constant burden on my mind 24/7. All of the alarmist talk really scares me. I don’t want it to, I want to believe the skeptic argument but it makes it difficult when so many argue against it. I’m so terrifed of all the people saying that within just a few years because of methane being released it’s going to make temperatures rise so high that it’s going to kill all of humanity. I try to tell myself that that’s ridiculous but again my anxiety along with what seems to be unusual weather and temperatures makes it difficult. I live in San Antonio, TX. We had an unseasonably warm May almost the entire month, mid to high 90s when the normal average is in the 80s and now here it is only the beginning of June and now every day for the forseeable future we’re going to have highs in the triple digits which is too hot too early for this time of year. It really scares me a lot and I’m here hoping that someone can give an explanation as to why this is that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m scared it has to do with. If anyone can give a good scientific explanation as to why thi is happening that has nothing to do with global warming or fossil fuels or anything else that would cause someone to worry about this I am honestly all ears. Can anyone give a good skeptic explanation as to why it’s so unseasonably hot already?

Reply to  Bobby K
June 5, 2022 6:21 pm

Sure.

It’s not unseasonably hot.

PCman999
Reply to  Bobby K
June 5, 2022 8:59 pm

Sure, you stole our heat! Its been unseasonably cold in Southern Ontario (and probably the rest of the Eastern Northern American continent) for months now.

Give the heat back and we won’t tell the authorities.

El Nina is the little wonder spreading joy to you, don’t worry, be happy, get a tan.

roaddog
Reply to  Bobby K
June 5, 2022 11:28 pm

You should get a girlfriend.

Mr.
Reply to  Bobby K
June 6, 2022 9:00 am

Bobby, just take enormous comfort in the fact that what you’re currently experiencing has been previously experienced many, many times before by many, many people in many, many parts of the world.

Further, what you’re currently experiencing will again be experienced many, many times again by many, many people in many, many parts of the world.

Climate(s) are like the horses on the carousel at the fairground – the same horses just keep coming around again and again . . .

J.R.
June 5, 2022 4:45 pm

Many of the key points are the same things we’ve been hearing for thirty years, things which were supposed to have devastated civilization at least ten years ago. Aren’t scientists supposed to be keen on observation? How to they rationalize their repeated spewing of nonsense?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  J.R.
June 5, 2022 5:13 pm

Like ouija boards, model outcomes have replaced data to “show” them whatever they need to see!

H.R.
Reply to  J.R.
June 5, 2022 6:27 pm

You don’t have to rationalize (or apologize) when you use Acme EZ-Move Goalposts**. Just give ’em a little push and they move ten years down the road.


Endorsed by Wile E. Coyote, Genius
😉

June 5, 2022 5:08 pm

Surely Tans knows that the half life residence time of our emitted CO2 is less than 3 years, because they are replaced by natural emitted molecules. The oft said “hundreds of years” is a purely speculative model guess as to how long it would take the total concentration to “return” to 280 ppm if our emissions ceased. About 25% of the atmospheric mass of CO2 is replaced every year by the huge natural flux. So most of our emitted molecules are gone in 6 years or so. Concentration and residence time are not related.

Tans is a noted authority on CO2 so he knows he is lying!

Peter K
June 5, 2022 5:54 pm
  • “The pandemic cut global carbon emissions in 2020, but they rebounded last year”

The biggest CO2 emitters did shut down for a month or so during the pandemic, however it did not register on the Keeling Curve. Still waiting for those 1000’s of Climate Scientists to tell us, how much of that Global CO2 measured at 420ppm is attributed to the burning of fossil fuels?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peter K
June 5, 2022 8:10 pm

There was an 18% decline in anthro’ CO2 in April 2020. However, the seasonal ramp-up curve for 2020 is indistinguishable from 2019, both in slope and May peak.

roaddog
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 5, 2022 11:30 pm

There’s clue there.

Forrest Gardener
June 5, 2022 5:55 pm

I see the term “climate change events”. Could somebody please pick a location and a date of their choosing then tell us what the climate was and what the climate is now? And for bonus points tell us what event caused the change or alternatively what change caused the event?

Chris Hanley
June 5, 2022 6:10 pm

Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer …

The implication is that CO2 concentration and temperature are directly related and that is the logical fallacy of ‘begging the question’: ‘when an argument’s premise assumes the truth of the conclusion’.
That assumption is also falsified by empirical evidence just in the past eighty years.

June 5, 2022 6:11 pm

The fun part of the “CO2 is evil and humans are raising atmospheric CO2 concentrations” approach to human existence is that no matter what we do we will have no effect on CO2 in the atmosphere. Which means we have to always do more and more to influence something upon which we have no influence. The oceans contain 50 times the CO2 in the atmosphere and simple ocean warming and cooling controls the atmosphere.

It’s a wonderful never-win situation, but they will always demand more from us.

RickWill
June 5, 2022 6:20 pm

Emissions across the globe continue to rise despite nations committing to cut them.

Only a naive fool could make such a statement. Whenever has a government commitment meant actually doing anything.

While the western nations continue to buy and erect symbols to the weather gods, China and India will continue to convert the resources and energy needed to build them.

Anyone but a fool understands this. All miners are supportive of Net-Zero because it can never be achieved with weather energy extractors so is a never ending source of demand for all mined commodities.

Biden has dyslexic policies. Prevent access to energy resources while also lowering the cost of those resources. Doomed to fail.

n.n
June 5, 2022 6:52 pm

Go green, do your part and emit… recycle in the minority minority.

That said, rebel against extinction, find your opposite sex partner for life and do the do si do for “our Posterity”, and raise him or her right.

SAMURAI
Reply to  n.n
June 5, 2022 8:17 pm

n.n.-san

You’re being soooo transphobic with your, “raise him or her right.”.. I’m triggered.

As of 5 seconds ago, Leftists have declared gender is a social construct, so your “birth unit” (can’t say kids anymore either as it’s ageist) can change their gender hourly depending on their mood at the time..

Leftists have declared objective/empirical reality no longer exist, and everything is subjective based on what you current identify as and feeeeel is true; I.e. “my truth”…

That applies to CAGW, too! Sure there is zero evidence CAGW is remotely credible, but since “97% of scientists” feel it’s true, it IS true..

See how things work now?

Screw Western Civilization being based on cogito ergo sum, the new dictate is sentio ergo est!

SAMURAI
June 5, 2022 7:20 pm

Poor Lefties…

None of Leftists’ silly CAGW predictions are coming close to matching reality:

Severe Weather: IPCC’s AR5 reports admitted no increasing global trends in 100 years for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods, tropical storms, sub-tropical storms, thunderstorms, and hail..

Sea Level Rise: Stuck at around 10 inches/century… Not 10 feet/century as the Lunatic Left predicted…

Summer Arctic Ice Extents to disappear by 2012… Not so much… This year’s Arctic Ice Extent is ranked 16th lowest over the past 42 years… opps…

Global Warming Catastrophe: Nope. CMIP6 models predicted the global temp anomaly would be at +1.35C by May 2022… UAH 6 was only +0.17C (off by 5 standard deviations)… oops..

Crop yields: Leftists predicted widespread famine by now, but global crop yields and harvests continue to set new records almost ever year… ooops…

We’re about to suffer 30+ years of flat/falling global temperatures when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles.

The 30-year Pacific PDO cool cycle has already started, and the Atlantic AMO index is now at 0.0 and will start its 30-year cool cycle in a few years.

CAGW is and always has been a Leftist hoax…. ECS will actually be around 0.8C~1.2C and not +5.0Cas the Lunatic Leftists predicted…

US Leftists urgently want to waste $60 TRILLION every 10~15 a years to build a wind/solar grid with a 1-week battery backup..

If Leftists actually believed in CAGW, they’d only have to build 50 Palo-Verde scale nuclear plants for “just” $600 billion, and keep all existing hydro and nuclear facilities to make the US 100% “carbon neutral”, but alas, it’s just a Leftist money and power grab…

Leftists are so evil and idiotic…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 6, 2022 9:07 am

It’s a religion, not science. Hard to disabuse someone of their religious dogma.

Timothy R Robinson
June 5, 2022 7:21 pm

This is all very simple. We should gather all the resources together and divide them between the masses of the world. I suggest we call on the services of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joseph Stalin, and Karl Marx, they would be a good group.
The science never mattered, except science that fits their status quo. The ones with no part to play follow them because they are promised a place in the big boys future world. Small things are more important to them than stopping the horrors of starvation, lack of comfort, or higher standard of living.

ATheoK
June 5, 2022 7:58 pm

NOAA preaching their specious religion, again.

The pandemic cut global carbon emissions in 2020, but they rebounded last year

Not according to any scientific measurement. Alleged CO₂ emission reductions are pseudo calculations based upon dubious, at best, estimates.

Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer”

Really!?
Where did NOAA get such high resolution Pliocene data for atmospheric CO₂ concentration?

More NOAA conflating low resolution decadal/annual estimates with modern accurate precise hourly CO₂ measurements.

NOAA is not practicing science!
Unfortunately, it seems NOAA is closer to witchcraft or shamanism every year.

Last edited 2 months ago by ATheoK
TBeholder
Reply to  ATheoK
June 8, 2022 4:54 am

From paleoclimatology. Which is to say, mostly pulled out of a dinosaur’s behind.

Tombstone Gabby
June 5, 2022 9:05 pm

Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer.”

So how come the earth isn’t at that elevated temperature already?

Coeur de Lion
June 5, 2022 11:14 pm

Let’s not forget that it’s global warming that causes, perhaps, some change in the climate, not the level of CO2. At 1.3degsC per hundred years there won’t be much change observable

.KcTaz
June 5, 2022 11:24 pm

“…My point is if our ancestors in the 1800s could affordably raise entire cities out of flood zones, I’m pretty sure we have the technology and resources to do the same today.”

Sure we do. What we don’t have are the technology and resources to get all the permits from the many government agencies, local, state and federal, to do the same today. By the time all those are obtained, assuming they ever are, well, let’s just say if Noah had to face this bureaucracy, all the humans and animals would have drowned.

stargrazzer
June 6, 2022 12:37 am

The biggest GHG is the Hot Air is that spoken by the likes of IPCC, COPxx etc.!
Btw I recently saw a BBC programme stating “Carbon” Emissions, so thought …Oh they are generically covering Carbon Dioxide & Methane; but then the narrator then went on to say Carbon & Methane!
Most people will think Carbon as the black sooty bad substance, not any other allotropes* like diamonds etc. The conceptual disparities are quite laughable in this anti-“Carbon”/CO2 age.

*Eight allotropes of carbon: a) Diamond, b) Graphite, c) Lonsdaleite, d) C60 (Buckminsterfullerene or buckyball), e) C540, f) C70, g) Amorphous carbon, and h) single-walled carbon nanotube or buckytube.

Stephen Skinner
June 6, 2022 12:42 am

Donald Wuebbles said without cuts in carbon pollution “we will see ever more damaging levels of climate change, more heat waves, more flooding, more droughts, more large storms and higher sea levels.“

Mr Wuebbles is a soothsayer? He speaks with such certainty and this is based on what knowledge?

June 6, 2022 1:19 am

carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds to a thousand years, Mr Tans said.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 16 years. Say bomb test labelled CO2 measurements. Anything longer than that is dystopian spin.

Since 1963, as a result of a worldwide test ban treaty, 14C levels in the atmosphere have been decreasing exponentially with a mean half-life of 16 years.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871409/

And if it really were a thousand years, then reductions in CO2 emissions will have no effect for centuries anyway. Although when the subject is long term climate prediction under different emission scenarios, the supposedly long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere magically disappears.

Bob Lyman
June 6, 2022 1:51 am

The “world” is not trying to reduce GHG emissions. That is the claim of the political leaders in several countries, but the only countries that are incurring major economic costs to reduce emissions are in the OECD. Data from the BP Statistical Review of Energy and other sources has consistently shown that, since 1990 when climate became a political issue, global emissions have risen. Today they are at least 60 per cent higher and they continue to rise largely due to economic and population growth in the non-OECD countries, which already account for two-thirds of global emissions. The myth that the whole world is reducing emissions is dangerous, because it adds to the propaganda that demands ever more sacrifices of living costs and freedoms by the people of the OECD countries, despite no offsetting global emissions “benefits”.

Gerry, England
June 6, 2022 3:50 am

‘The world is trying to reduce emissions,’

Actually, no it isn’t. If you added up how many of the population were actively doing something to reduce emissions – ignoring those acting under duress trying to save money – then the percentage will be in single figures. There is not even a majority of countries in the world who are trying to reduce emissions.

Bruce Cobb
June 6, 2022 4:42 am

carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer

Ah, yes, one of the many ways the Climate Liars like to lie – the red herring fallacy. The implication, of course is that the CO2 was the cause of the higher temperatures, hoping they won’t get called on it.

Matthew Sykes
June 6, 2022 10:34 am

Scientists say carbon dioxide levels are now about the same as in the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 3.9C warmer 

So, that isnt case today, and you cant blame ‘thermal lag’, the surface temps respond to CO2 as quickly as they do to solar forcing each morning when the sun gets up. Todays high temperatures are NOT the results of sunshine 20 years ago, 2 years ago, or even yesterday!

They are the result of sunshine today!

And that so called ‘ocean heat uptake’. Doesnt apply to solar forcing, and in any case IR cant penetrate water, visible can. The oceans can not ‘uptake’ heat from IR. It is impossible.

Ulric Lyons
June 8, 2022 8:51 am

“University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles said without cuts in carbon pollution “we will see ever more damaging levels of climate change, more heat waves…”

The UK Met Office say the same, while referring to major heatwaves which are in reality discretely solar driven and a cause of climate change.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub

%d bloggers like this: