Antarctica Putting Brakes on Global Sea Level Rise! And: ‘World Climate News’ Makes Debut

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

New climate science videos now in English – made in Germany: ‘World Climate News’ YouTube channel

In the first video: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios looking more unlikely…some Antarctic regions will see cooling…

The German Die kalte Sonne site, and then later Klimanachrichten now presents its climate and energy news videos in English at its new YouTube channel: World Climate News. Be sure to subscribe.

World Climate News presents the latest scientific results, featuring commentary on and analysis of peer-reviewed articles from well-known journals.

The latest video looks at sea level rise and tornadoes.

Even the IPCC disregards alarmist sea level projections 

Concerning sea level rise, Potsdam climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf and other far-out alarmists have warned global sea levels could rise up to “one meter ninety” before the end of this century. Yet, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) takes a different view. In its 5th State of the Climate Report of 2013, for example, it projects a sea level rise of just 53 centimeters for a scenario where CO2 emissions peak around 2040.

Brakes on sea level rise as some Antarctic regions expected to get colder!

The 2013 IPCC projection has now been backed up by René van Westen and Henk Dijkstra from the University of Utrecht. Their published results of a sea-level computer simulation in the journal “Science Advances” showed that the ocean around Antarctica is hardly expected to warm up and that regions are even expected to get colder by the end of the century.

Thus, according to the new calculations, the ice melt caused on the coasts of Antarctica is only a third of what earlier, lower-resolution simulations suggested.

Antarctic ice volume to reduce sea level rise 25%

The new model also expects more snowfall in Antarctica and the Antarctic ice mass is even expected to remain unchanged and stable overall this century. In this respect, Antarctica will probably make no contribution at all to global sea-level rise by 2100. This reduces the rise in sea level to be expected in this century by 25%.

While the old model assumed a sea-level rise of about 42 cm, it is now only 33 cm, i.e. 9 cm less. A value that is far removed from the dramatic scenarios of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

TORNADOES

No data supporting link between warming and tornadoes

When it comes to tornado activity, December 2021 saw a series of violent tornadoes in the southeastern USA. More than 85 people died. As expected, the usual suspects pointed the finger at man-made climate change, World Climate News reports in the video.

However, Andreas Friedrich of the German Weather Service, DWD, reminded in mid-December 2021 that there is currently no evidence that the series of tornadoes is related to climate change. This is supported by Chris Martz, who plotted the tornado statistics for the USA using data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) for the last 65 years.

The result? No discernible trend.

How will tornadoes develop in the future? According to Matthew Woods of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, tornadoes could become rarer but more violent. The bottom line is that the future remains uncertain.

Subscribe to the new World Climate News YouTube channel here

4.6 22 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
69 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Philip Mulholland
January 25, 2023 2:07 am

Remember the days when we were told that we were not sophisticated enough to able to understand the nuanced difference between weather and climate?

HotScot
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 25, 2023 2:18 am

That would be the five day weather forecasts the MET office (UK) couldn’t get right Vs the 100 year climate forecasts they absolutely could get right…….

When I was at school in the 1970’s it was explained to me that ‘climate’ was a convenient term for the differing weather patterns across continental masses. Nothing whatsoever to do with what was projected to happen in 100 years which was known as complete guesswork.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  HotScot
January 25, 2023 5:06 am

It seems that the bright spark teachers today no longer teach the four Rs, Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and Reasoning. They are more eager to indoctrinate children than to teach what was taught in the seventies, sixties and for some of us in the fifties.

But you ain’t seen nothing yet if you do not notice the teaching in universities with their diversity, equity and inclusion focus. I am grateful to my school for Geography and History, for Physics and Chemistry and Mathematics, and for languages including Latin, all without politics. That should be left to the real adults in the room.

wilpost
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 6:12 am

Homeschooling is the answer, or a small, non-woke private school

KevinM
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 9:21 am

teachers today no longer”
Did they ever? When?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  KevinM
January 25, 2023 9:38 am

Mine did in the fifties and sixties.

Mr.
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 9:46 am

Yes, they imparted KNOWLEDGE not IDEOLOGY.

KevinM
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 9:51 am

I’m an 80s child of New England USA. Applying today’s wisdom to yesterday’s situation – I was being taught by educated young and middle-aged women with liberal arts degrees who did not truly want to be there. Some of them were politically communist. Some of them would have traded their entire income to look a year younger. We all had some favorite teacher. Mine said some memorable things I now know were simply never true.

Leo Smith
Reply to  KevinM
January 25, 2023 10:56 pm

I fully remember my geography teacher – ex RAF pilot…

“Life is rough, tough, and desperately unjust…
…get used to it”.

BCBill
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 7:46 pm

Or Reading, Reckoning and Rhetoric. The more useful R’s.

Leo Smith
Reply to  BCBill
January 25, 2023 10:58 pm

Reeling, Writhing, and Fainting in coils, as I recall…
“Our teacher was a turtle, we called him tortoise”
“Why?”
“Because he taught us!”

Richard Greene
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 25, 2023 4:40 am

Good weather = weather
Bad weather = climate change

The best climate science and energy articles I read today:

The best climate science and energy articles I read today, January 25, 2023 (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

Curious George
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
January 25, 2023 12:31 pm

the nuanced difference between weather and climate?”
Easy. The Great Flood of 1862 (43 days of rain) which created a California Central Valley Lake and forced a temporary transfer of government from Sacramento to San Francisco was just weather. The Great Flood of 2023 (14 days of rain) is climate.

The golden rule: who has gold, sets the rules.

HotScot
January 25, 2023 2:11 am

Their published results of a sea-level computer simulation in the journal “Science Advances” 

Here we go, computer simulated projections.

Hold the NetZero bus, we’re all gonna freeze.

Again!

When asked to comment on their findings a computer simulation Eggspert said “We are right this time. We have learned from all our previous work that we refuse to condemn as nonsense on a stick, it was a ‘learning experience'”.

Last edited 13 days ago by HotScot
Richard Greene
Reply to  HotScot
January 25, 2023 9:22 am

“Here we go, computer simulated projections.”

My computer model projection in 2005 predicted my Get Rich Quick investment portfolio would reach $1 million by 2023, if I retired in 2005. So I retired in 2005. My portfolio did go up, up, up — currently worth $129 and 6 cents. Slight miscalculation there.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 11:39 am

Richard, you’re projected amount was correct, but your timing was a little off.

barryjo
Reply to  HotScot
January 25, 2023 10:11 am

Except learning is supposed to be a never-ending process. It is not the destination.

strativarius
January 25, 2023 2:36 am

Let’s not get carried away with realism.

“Icefin has reached the point at which the warm ocean water meets the wall of ice at the front of the mighty Thwaites glacier – the point where this vast body of ice begins to melt.

Snow on the ice runway delays my flight from New Zealand to McMurdo, the main US research station in Antarctica. This is the first of a whole catalogue of delays and disruptions. It takes the science teams weeks just to get to their field camps. At one stage, the entire season’s research is on the point of being cancelled because storms stop all flights to West Antarctica from McMurdo for 17 consecutive days.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51097309

Why didn’t they ask Prof. Turney? Snow on the ice runway? Er, never mind.

Thwaites is clearly doomed to death by propaganda dressed up as Antarctic science.

KevinM
Reply to  strativarius
January 25, 2023 9:27 am

warm ocean water” – I hope researchers packed swimsuits.

Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 3:01 am

It is obvious Antarctica is not melting from more CO2 in the air and the average temperature there has barely changed since the 1970s. Earlier measurements are less accurate. After over 50 years it is obvious greenhouse gas increases do not affect Antarctica. The only warming there is local — some edges of the glacier near underwater volcanoes and the peninsula from tide changes. Those two local warming patterns could not be caused by CO2. In fact, the small amount of local warming was offset by cooling elsewhere. The reason for that is most of Antarctica experiences global cooling from increased greenhouse gases. There is no risk of Antarctica ice melting from more CO2 in the atmosphere and accelerating sea level rise. The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.

The best climate science and energy articles I read today:

The best climate science and energy articles I read today, January 25, 2023 (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

“Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools part of AntarcticaLocal weather conditions, altitude to blame for counterintuitive trend.In a world where most regions are warming because of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), central Antarctica has been cooling slightly in recent years. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 typically trap heat radiated back toward space from the planet’s surface, but large swaths of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (the broad pink mass on the right side of the image) are, on average, actually colder than the upper layers of the atmosphere for much of the year—the only place on Earth where that’s true. When the team looked at the overall balance between the radiation upward from the surface of the ice sheet and the radiation both upward and downward from the upper levels of the atmosphere across all infrared wavelengths over the course of a year, they found that in central Antarctica the surface and lower atmosphere, against expectation, actually lose more energy to space if the air contains greenhouse gases, the researchers report online and in a forthcoming Geophysical Research Letters. And adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in the short-term triggered even more energy loss from the surface and lower atmosphere there, the team’s climate simulations suggest. The topsy-turvy temperature trend stems, in part, from the region’s high elevation; much of the surface of the ice sheet smothering East Antarctica lies above an elevation of 3000 meters, so it is much colder than it would be at lower altitudes. Moreover, that region often experiences what meteorologists call a temperature inversion, where temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere are cooler than those higher up. For the lower-altitude fringes of the icy continent, and for the rest of the world (even Siberia and Greenland), the greenhouse effect still works as expected.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools part of Antarctica | Science | AAAS

prjndigo
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 7:17 am

Glacier in Greenland is already displacing its own mass in magma… which means it has no effect on sea level whether it melts or gets heavier.

Richard Greene
Reply to  prjndigo
January 25, 2023 9:27 am

But just to be sure, I’m building an ark here in Michigan, for when the Atlantic Ocean reaches my front door. In Manhattan subway cars will be replaced by submarines. And taxis will be replaced by gondolas. Al Gore owns the Manhattan Gondola Line and is selling 1% shares for $1,000 each. I bought one. Al has 1,674 more one percent shares for sale.

SteveG
January 25, 2023 3:03 am

The CAGW alarmists have a similar global climate news outlet, in fact many sources, its MSM and nutty leftist public “news” channels. Every time there is a storm, flood, fire, hail, hurricane, tornado, blizzard, temp above 30°C – or the threatened extinction of any species on the planet — It’s CO2 causing every “event”

The alarmists luvvies news channel goes 24/7 365 days — non-stop around the world…

James Snook
Reply to  SteveG
January 25, 2023 4:22 am
Richard Greene
Reply to  SteveG
January 25, 2023 4:53 am

Leftists used to ignore bad weather

A few years ago, they started blaming bad weather on climate change

Now they blame predictions of bad weather on climate change, starting a day or two before the bad weather arrives, and sometimes it never arrives. We often get a scary weather report exaggerating of a coming storm, that typically ends up much less severe than predicted.

Wednesday news:
“8 to 12 inches of snow expected on Friday

Thursday news:
“Friday winter storm expected to be worse than we thought”

Friday night news:
“We had two inches of snow today”. TV station shows a video of unsteady in the wind, old Mrs. McGillicuddy, coming home from the local pub, obviously drunk, slipping and falling down on an icy sidewalk, taken from their TV station videos archives last winter.

The best climate science and energy articles i read today”

The best climate science and energy articles I read today, January 25, 2023 (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

SteveG
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 3:06 pm

That’s right. The lexicon of alarmists and dedicated members of the church of climate must include these words in every day speak —

catastrophic
unprecedented
record-breaking
firestorm
massive
life-threatening
disastrous
dire prediction
extreme (heat or cold or any other weather phenomenon)
lethal
deadly
cataclysmic — etc, etc, etc….

KevinM
Reply to  SteveG
January 25, 2023 9:35 am

Kids don’t use broadcast media, nor many people under 30. Likewise this site. I bet our demo is old, white, male, conservative? Angry NW Euro activist children would disappear from notice if the over-40s would just let them go.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  KevinM
January 25, 2023 10:29 am

Angry NW Euro activist children would disappear from notice if their parents had shown them the door when they turned 18. They would be busy earning their own keep and staying away from superglue except for repair jobs.

I must commend the makers of this YouTube channel for providing an attractive, well spoken presenter. That should attract more attention to the issue and might actually get reality to the forefront.

I do appreciate the presenter is not a native English speaker but, when she pronounced the state of Missouri, she was, I’m told, not far off the mark for accuracy.

Tom Abbott
January 25, 2023 3:19 am

Instead of improving the climate change science, the climate change alarmist community focuses on improving the climate change propaganda.

That would be because they have no evidence to present, regarding a connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather, so they are reduced to lying about the subject.

The Climate Change Alarmists are promoting a concept that has no basis in fact.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2023 3:40 am

And… it only gets worse in their narrative. How far can they ramp it up?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  strativarius
January 25, 2023 4:41 am

That’s a good question.

I’ve seen some very hyperbolic headlines lately.

The Earth is 90 seconds from Doomsday according to the new setting on the Doomsday Clock, because of potential nuclear war and because of human-caused climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/us/doomsday-clock-midnight.html

The climate change lying is really doing harm to young people’s mental health. They believe these crazy bastards and feel like they don’t have a future.

Last edited 13 days ago by Tom Abbott
Scissor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2023 5:05 am

I agree that the lying about climate change is harming their mental health, but in this case, young people can’t even read clocks with hands.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2023 11:46 am

I have recently taken to talking with young people about their electric bicycles. I ask how many miles a day they ride. The answer is usually “1-2 miles” (no one walks anymore). I then ask how often they charge it up. The answer is “every night, to be safe.” (I don;t ask how often they need to charge it.)
So we now have kids in their teens with range anxiety.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2023 5:05 am

There is lots of evidence connecting CO2 and climate change. You may want to ignore it, but it does exist. CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas above 400ppm and should have a small effect on the climate. It is science denying to arbitrarily dismiss CO2 as a climate change variable.

You can say the effect of more CO2 has been harmless (I think beneficial). And the future effect will be even smaller due to the logarithmic effect. So small that the benefits of more CO2 far outweigh any costs (which I have yet to identify).

I have been advocating since 1997 for 800ppm as a minimum desired CO2 level to boost C3 photosynthesis plants, That goal is supported by over 3,000 plant CO2 studies and many decades of greenhouse owner experience with CO2 enrichment. (most likely 1000 to 1500ppm CO2 would be better than 800ppm, but the approximately 200 studies I read rarely looked at over 2x ambient CO2, or 800ppm). If more CO2 in the troposphere causes some global warming, in the pattern of 1975 to 2015 global warming, that is even better news.

The pattern and timing of global warming since 1975 (to 2015) was good news:
Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia
Mainly warming at higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere
Mainly warming in the six coldest months of the year
Mainly warming at night (TMIN)
That’s all good news to the few people who live there!

The best climate science and energy articles I read today:

The best climate science and energy articles I read today, January 25, 2023 (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 5:44 am

Only evidence if you choose to ignore physics and historic climate changes. If you look at all the evidence it becomes clear we are simply experiencing yet another warm period in the 6000 year cycles of alternating warm and cool periods.

Last edited 13 days ago by Richard M
Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
January 25, 2023 9:38 am

There were no manmade CO2 emission in historical climate proxies, so they are irrelevant. There are no 6000 year cycles — that is nonsense.

There was significant warming from about 20000 years ago to 10000 years ago. That’s not 6000 years.

We had a warm period from about 9000 to 5000 years ago. That is also not 6000 years.

We had cooling from about 5000 years ago until the 1690s. Also not 6000 years.

Then we had warming since the 1690s — obviously not 6,000 years yet.

So in the past 20,000 years, your 6000 year cycle claim fell apart faster than a cheap suitcase.

I did not ignore the physics of greenhouse effect and CO2’s apart in it. You did.

It is science denying to completely dismiss all evidence that CO2 is a climate change variable.
Extremely few scientists in the world make that false claim.

That point of view makes you unpersuasive in the huge battle to refute CAGW scaremongering. And we Climate Realists are seriously losing that battle. AGW denying does not help us refute CAGW.

Last edited 13 days ago by Richard Greene
Leo Smith
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 11:07 pm

Completely wrong. we have had several periods of much greater warmth since the ice age entered the current interstadial – the Holocene optimum, the Roman warm period, the mediaeval warm period. And so on. None of these show any correlation to CO2.

And neither does modern warming.
That CO2 warms a little, is not in question.
That it warms a lot is refuted by the evidence.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 26, 2023 1:31 pm

There are no 6000 year cycles — that is nonsense.

So, you deny the GIPS2 ice cores and dozens of other proxies showing multiple warm periods? I’d take a closer look. What appears to be happening is alternating warm and cold periods over the past 5-7000 years. These cycles appear to be getting shorter and shorter. This can be explained by global ocean currents.

Have you looked at Rosenthal et al 2013. The end of the Holocene Optimum looks to be around 4000 BC. That’s where I got the 6000 years. Doesn’t matter to me if you prefer a different number. My point is still the same. Several millennia with alternating warm and cold periods.

I did not ignore the physics of greenhouse effect and CO2’s apart in it. You did.

Not true. I looked at the physics. First thing to notice is the absorption of surface radiation in the CO2 and CH4 bands is saturated. That really ends the general claims about the greenhouse effect.

The replacement claim is the movement of radiation to space within the atmosphere is delayed by more GHGs thus creating warming. This claim comes from radiation models which are only a subset of the atmospheric energy movement processes. If one looks at the entire atmosphere, this claim fails. The key is to accept 70 years of NOAA data as Miskolczi 2010 shows.

It is science denying to completely dismiss all evidence that CO2 is a climate change variable.

Or, I looked deeper into the physics than most have done. You accepted model outputs without looking at the entire atmosphere.

mkelly
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 6:40 am

Dick says:”It is science denying to arbitrarily dismiss CO2 as a climate change variable.”

I do not “arbitrarily” dismiss CO2. I do it with deliberation and purposefully. So I am not “science denying”.

Richard Greene
Reply to  mkelly
January 25, 2023 9:42 am

It is arbitrary to dismiss all evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore a climate change variable.

With deliberation or not, you are wrong.
Your AGW denying does not help the n battle to refute CAGW.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 11:09 pm

Artstudents. Just because CO2 has some effect, does not make it a significant or dominant effect, and the data refutes that .

For all practical purposes CO2 is not a (significant) climate factor.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 26, 2023 3:38 am

I second Leo’s take on the subject.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 26, 2023 1:49 pm

It is arbitrary to dismiss all evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas 

Nothing arbitrary at all. It is done with great care. As I stated earlier, you’ve not done the work to understand how energy actually flows through the atmosphere. I think you are smart enough, do the work.

1) Energy from the surface is generally absorbed by GHGs within the first few meters of the surface. For CO2 is is 99.95% within the first 10 meters.
2) Energy is then shared with other atmospheric molecules through collisions and kinetic energy transfers. These happen a million times faster than radiation events near the surface.
3) Atmospheric radiation emission events occur after energy is extracted from the atmosphere via kinetic energy transfers.
4) After a short distance the energy is reabsorbed back into the atmosphere and once again shared with other molecules.

Notice that the energy in 1) is entirely different than the energy in 3). In fact, the odds are millions to one against the same quanta of energy existing in both events. It’s so unlikely it can be ignored.

Radiation models actually assume they are identical. This leads to a view that radiation proceeds quickly from the surface, through the atmosphere and out to space.

Instead, the first quanta of energy may stay in the atmosphere for minutes, hours or longer. As a result it is prone to movement by convection and conduction. This is completely missed by radiation models.

The reason radiation models get warming is because they don’t see this energy movement in the background. As Miskolczi found when looking at the NOAA data, the opacity of the atmosphere remain unchanged over time. This is easily explained by taking into account this background energy movement.

Once the entire atmosphere is considered the warming by well mixed GHGs stops when saturation levels are reached.

DonM
Reply to  mkelly
January 25, 2023 10:21 am

They be significant climate change variables, and they be 2nd , 3rd, 4th order climate variables.

With purpose & deliberation one can decide that CO2 is (or is not) a significant climate change variable. It appears that you have done this.

One can also be an ignorant dick, while discounting (or being unaware of) the differences in significance, with respect to the variables that are involved. And then claiming that those that see CO2 as less than significant are denying science.

Editor
Reply to  DonM
January 25, 2023 12:08 pm

Richard Greene did not say that CO2 is a ‘significant’ climate change variable. He said “CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas above 400ppm and should have a small effect on the climate”. I think he has got this right. And of course, we can still discuss how small ‘small’ is.

DonM
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 25, 2023 5:39 pm

IF CO2 had stayed at 340 ppm, how would the SLR rate have differed?

IF CO2 had stayed at 340 ppm, what would we be now assigning as the global average temp … how different than current assignment?

IF CO2 had stayed at 340 ppm, do we really believe that there would not have been major fires in California over the last few years?

Honest answers to those questions give an indication as to how small ‘small’ is.

Last edited 12 days ago by DonM
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 26, 2023 3:43 am

That’s the evidence I’m looking for: how small is small when it comes to CO2 effects.

CO2 isn’t having much effect right now: CO2 amounts in the atmosphere are increasing yet the global temperatures are cooling.

That may be a temporary effect, or it may not be.

The temperatures are not heading in the direction the alarmists say they should be going with increasing CO2.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 25, 2023 11:03 pm

What the data tells us is that CO2 is far less important in midern warning than oither factorsm, because the temperatire rise simply does not correlate well with CO2 rise.
It correlates far better with the rise in air traffic and urbanisation.

No one denies climate changes.
No one denies CO2 has at least some effect.
What is denied – not by climate deniers, but by the evidence – is that CO2 is the single most significant factor in modern warming, or that modern warming represents any real threat.,

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 26, 2023 3:26 am

“There is lots of evidence connecting CO2 and climate change. You may want to ignore it, but it does exist.

You made that same claim in a recent comment. I replied that I would like to hear about that evidence, but you never commented. Perhaps here?

“CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas above 400ppm and should have a small effect on the climate.”

“Should” being definitive evidence?

” It is science den”ying to arbitrarily dismiss CO2 as a climate change variable.”

I have never dismissed CO2 as a climate variable. What I have said is there is no evidence connecting CO2 to any weather event or even to the temperature of the Earth’s climate. That’s not denial (why are you afraid to spell it?), that’s saying there is no evidence and that is the truth.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that it increases the warmth in the Earth’s atmosphere, but we don’t know by how much, and it is apparently not enough to measure (other than bogus, bastardized fraudulent Hockey Sticks), and we don’t know the net effect of CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere as it could be warming or it could be cooling, and nobody can say any different right now based on what we know. That’s why I say there is no evidence. Because there isn’t. All there is, is speculation, assumptions and assertions. That’s how it has been since the subject first came up.

Evidence please. That’s my mantra. Climate alarmists hate it because they don’t have any of it and they know it.

Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 4:42 am

Notice how climate alarmists are always going on about the Arctic melting but say very little about the Antarctic that has a massive amount more ice covering it. If there was significant global warming and melting would it not therefore be far more visible in the Antarctic? Perhaps the Antarctic did not get the IPCC global warming memo? 😉

Oldseadog
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 6:21 am

It didn’t get the memo due to snow on the runway delaying the mail.

Jack
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 6:26 am

The main part of the Antarctic ice cap melting is resulting from the geothermal and volcanic conditions from the subglaciar rocky substratum, not from the climate change.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Jack
January 25, 2023 9:52 am

The main part of Antarctica is NOT melting
The total snow and ice mass is increasing
There is some local warming near the glaciers edges where ice shelves overlook underseas volcanoes. And some warming of the small peninsula where changing ocean current could be another cause.

It is very important to recognize that the main part of the Antarctica ice cap is NOT warming and is NOT melting. If it was melting, that would accelerate sea level rise, which is not happening.

The best climate science and energy articles I read today:

The best climate science and energy articles I read today, January 25, 2023 (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

Last edited 13 days ago by Richard Greene
Richard Greene
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 9:48 am

Give Climate Howlers some credit for not using Antarctica and its penguins as their global warming poster children.

Climate Howlers scaremonger about the floating ice of the Arctic, that can’t raise sea level, and the polar bears, who are increasing in numbers and eat seals, so I don’t like them at all.

Maybe they are saving “Antarctica is melting” and “penguins are dying from global warming” for next year? Although I’m betting the Climate Howlers will next claim climate change will kill your dog, cause warts, and shrink man’s favorite organ.

Phil.
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 9:58 am

Well the Antarctic seaice did hit a record minimum last year, likely that it will hit a new record this year, probably less than 1million km^2 in area. Some significant movement of large blocking icebergs by the Thwaites for example is likely to lead to loss of glacial ice there. Total global seaice likely to reach a new record minimum shortly.

Editor
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 25, 2023 12:37 pm

There was a long period when the climate alarmists went on and on and on about Antarctic warming, Antarctic ice melting, Antarctic ice sheets breaking off, etc, etc. If you were around at the time, you surely could not possibly have missed it. What they were doing was cherry-picking a bit of the West Antarctic Peninsular and trying to fool everyone that it represented all of Antarctica. The game sort of ended after the ‘ship of fools’ incident, when their narrative lost a huge amount of credibility. They have moved on to new scares, each of which they abandon when it loses credibility, to take up a new scare. I may be imagining it, but they seem to have gone quite quiet on polar bears and the Great Barrier Reef recently, and have had to move on to much more obscure things, like ants are under threat because they aren’t adapting. It may not feel like it, but realists are I think slowly winning the science arguments and the battle has shifted much further into the political arena.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 26, 2023 3:55 am

“I may be imagining it, but they seem to have gone quite quiet on polar bears and the Great Barrier Reef recently,”

I think you are right. Not much mention of polar bears or the Great Barrier Reef or Antarctica.

Climate alarmists are running out of scary scenarios. They are reduced to claiming they see CO2’s effects in every thunderstorm or other weather event. It’s all subjective. The last refuge of climate change scoundrels.

Ron Long
January 25, 2023 5:29 am

I think that tornado outbreaks in the SW USA are due to colliding air masses, colder and fairly dry from the NW and wet and hot from the SW, and the corioles force inducing spinning where cold air goes down and hot air goes over. The strength of the tornado outbreak appears to be related to the temperature contrast between the colliding air masses. In the case of the December, 2022 outbreak, it was the very cold air from the NW that provided the great contrast, not normal air from the SW. Global Warming? Not so much. Climate Change? NO, happened before. Next.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
January 26, 2023 4:05 am

A storm front is always going to produce some tornadoes. The degree of contrast between the cold air mass and the warm air mass determines the strength of the tornadoes. Moisture plays a large role, too.

aaron
January 25, 2023 8:11 am

Do new models include increasing water capture by land?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704665115

“Land water storage trends, summed over all basins, are positive for GRACE (71–82 km3/y) but negative for models (−450 to −12 km3/y), contributing opposing trends to global mean sea level change.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1603743969418018816

Last edited 13 days ago by aaron
Coeur de Lion
January 25, 2023 8:40 am

It’s all going to get very sad when due to ocean outgassing and Chinese power stations the level of CO2 keeps going on up and up and up and up and everyone realised it’s not gonna change

Richard Greene
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 25, 2023 10:03 am

Over 7 billion people, of 8 billion, live in nations that could not care less about Nut Zero.

Ocean outgassing from +1 degree C. warming will not increase atmospheric CO2. The oceans will still be net CO2 absorbers as atmospheric CO2 levels increase. But they will absorb less CO2 if they warm by +1 degree C. Perhaps 25ppm (or lower) less CO2 absorption by the oceans caused by a+1 degree ocean temperature. No net outgassing — oceans will still be absorbing some of the manmade CO2.increases.

It seems to me that climate conferences cause higher rates of CO2 emissions. And that’s likely to happen with Nut Zero too. CO2 emissions are closely related to economic growth, and a lot of nations in the world are desperate for more economic growth.

The best climate change and energy articles I read today:

The best climate science and energy articles I read today, January 25, 2023 (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

KevinM
January 25, 2023 9:18 am

published results of … [any]… computer simulation”
Computer simulation? The tangentially related thought comes to mind: I love when congressmen with aol accounts vote on bills to retrain automobile assembly techs to web programmers. I think the link is a lack of basic understanding that a computer program is just an essay with enforced grammar rules.

for a scenario where CO2 emissions peak around 2040.”
Looking 2 decades into the future? We might all be plugged into virtual planet by then.

What problem is being solved?

KevinM
January 25, 2023 9:44 am

The new model also expects more snowfall in Antarctica and the Antarctic ice mass is even expected to remain unchanged and stable overall this century”

i.e. No way to verify results during the next 8 decades.

pflashgordon
January 25, 2023 9:50 am

The revised model she discusses here now predicts a 33 cm rise in the next 77 years. However, even this prediction substantially exceeds observed trends. Sea level rise is not accelerating and is plodding along at about 2 to 3 mm/yr (depending on your data source), so instead of 33 cm by 2100, current rates would yield only 15 to 23 cm (6-9 inches) sea level rise by 2100.

So this model is somewhat closer to observed trends, but something else is wrong with the model, likely the same fatal flaws that plague other global circulation models.

travis
January 25, 2023 12:40 pm

good to see a new source of accurate information

Bob
January 25, 2023 3:15 pm

We’re making progress! Keep up the good work.

Colin
January 25, 2023 7:29 pm

Sadly teachers are supposed to teach you HOW to think not WHAT to think. My University Degree was in Marine Biology/Oceanography. Never worked in the field – however I DID learn how to learn and finished my working career in IT Project Management. Because I learned how to learn. No regrets

aelfrith
January 26, 2023 1:11 am

Clearly the effects of YouTube channels like CDN (https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateDN) are having too much of an impact

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights