A very telling exposé of a meeting between leading “climate communicators” appeared on Twitter last week. In it, pictures of a slideshow mentioned things like: “Worst messages tested: electric cars, Green New Deal, frontline communities, ‘Big Oil lied’, and climate pollution.” Essentially, the meeting described why climate alarmists have failed to capture the public’s attention with their messages. What they discovered is that lies work better than facts!
BREAKING: We’ll also discuss the revelations of SCOTUS knocking down the Chevron doctrine and what that means for environment and climate, plus we’ll examine what happened on climate in the presidential debate.
Steve Milloy of junkscience.com will join us for commentary, as he’s been following and debunking these lies for years. We will look at some of that failed messaging too, as well as go over the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Tune in LIVE for the stream at 1 p.m. ET (noon CT) to watch the show and leave your own questions in the chat with host Anthony Watts, along with panelists H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The Climate Crisis” is The Big Lie” of our time.
Yes, the EPA’s endangerment finding is very vulnerable now. Someone should sue them on the grounds that the so called science behind it is nothing but speculation, wrapped in smoke and mirrors and supported with emotional manipulation.
seems reasonable that if it can’t be proven that there is any danger- then they’re can’t be an endangerment finding
instead, the EPA, under Trump will come up with a “climate enhancement finding”
Don’t you mean a “CO2 enhancement finding”? Surface life on this planet would continue to exist in the absence of Oxygen, but without CO2, most life on Earth would become extinct. How can man combat this real existential threat …
In the far future after we’ve exhausted our supply of fossil fuels, we’ll be cooking limestone just to add CO2 to the atmosphere in order to prevent agriculture from crashing.
right!
Is it not the case that it was a sue and settle case that created the endangerment finding? There was nothing from Congress that could possibly support that EPA power so EPA paid some NGOs big money to bring a lawsuit against EPA for not regulating CO2. EPA says ‘we have no defense, we give up’ so the lawsuit is won by default, “forcing” EPA to do what it wants to do but has no legitimate power to do.
Story tip. #sealevel – Explore | Facebook
NASA states that Global sea levels have risen more than 4 inches (102 millimeters) since measurements began in 1992, increasing coastal flooding in some places, so I checked again with tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov just in case I had missed something spectacular regarding coastal flooding in the last couple of weeks. I checked around 30 sites from around the world and the most recorded was around 1 foot per century with an outlier being Juneau at (minus) -4.41 feet per century!
Am I missing something obvious?
Yes, the politics driving the bogus claims. Keep in mind that the political left considers their climate crusade to be their most supportable cause, so they have to keep the emotional manipulation going strong in order to convince people to act against their own best interests..
Well, 2024-1992 is 32 years, so a linear extrapolation of that recent SLR trend to a century (i.e.,100 years) span would be (100/32)* 4 inches = 12.5 inches, which is “around 1 foot”.
So, yes, global SLR is rising at slightly more than 12 inches per century, or slightly more than 3 mm per year, as determined by high-accuracy satellite radar/lidar altimeters, including those on the TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2, and Jason-3 spacecraft.
Unlike typical surface-based tide gages, satellite-based SLR is established independent of local land subsidence.
NOAA’s Tides & Currents Trends Map Contains this statement:
“Areas experiencing little-to-no change in relative sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr.”
1.7-1.8 mm/yr comes to less than 7 inches per century.
Acceleration of the rate of sea level calculated from 67 long term tide gauges forms a very tight group distributed around 0.01 mm/yr². Source PSMSL
Starting at 1992 ignores 185 years of available tide gauge data and is essentially a cherry pick
All I can say is that your reference to NOAA’s Tides & Currents Trends Map is in conflict with the NOAA satellite data effective as of early-2024 (ref: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/ , from which the attached graph was produced) that documents on the face of the graph a global sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year.
I suspect your reference has NOT been corrected for land subsidence or land uplift (given that it directly refers to “relative sea level”.
You can see the “adjustments” already happening in the change from Topex to Jason, where the trend in the original Topex data is more than doubles by those “adjustments”
The graph you present, for the TOPEX/Poseidon data identified in red, covers the period from October 1992 to April 2000 . . . an interval of less than 8 years. Yet you assert its overlap with later data from the Jason-1 satellite (shown in black) shows “adjustments”?
Talk about cherry picking!
The difference in the short period of overlap is likely nothing more than the difference in the accuracy/repeatability of the altimeters used on each of the two spacecraft (it’s also possible the TOPEX altimeter was suffering long term drift or degradation in its particular radar altimeter).
In comparison, please examine the overall consistency of the trend of global SLR measurements from five different satellites obtained over the period of 1993 to 2024 (a span of 31 consecutive years) in the graph that I posted above. Minor, but expected, data variations from instrumentation variability is seen but there is no logical reason to call these “adjustments”.
What are the measurement tolerances and quantization errors?
What are the errors introduced due to orbital change/decay and how are those resolved. What are the errors introduced in resolving orbital change?
Last I read, there was a quantization of 5 cm (2 inches). How, with that quantization could there be only a error of 1 cm?
I am only asking questions. I make not claims one way or another.
The Web and a good search engine can be your friends in answering the questions you asked:
“CCI Sea Level Bridging Phase Characterisation of altimetry errors and uncertainties”
(https://climate.esa.int/media/documents/D1_SL_cci_BP_Final_Report_SeaLevel_Uncertainties_20190605.pdf )
“Uncertainty in Satellite estimate of Global Mean Sea Level changes, trend and acceleration”
(see https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2019-10/essd-2019-10-manuscript-version3.pdf )
“Local sea level trends, accelerations and uncertainties over 1993–2019”
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00786-7 )
Among many others.
I have found more and more often Google is unreliable.
Do not trust Nature. Used to be good, but no longer.
Firstly, the satellite sea level measures are NOT high-accuracy by any means.
Secondly, they are also corrupted by spurious “adjustments”
Can you supply credible, science-based references supporting those statements?
BTW, “high-accuracy” is in the eye of the beholder.
Actually, very low accuracy satellite radar/lidar altimeters, as applied to sea level.
Not only that, but they are measuring a moving surface, at different points over a period of time..
The statistical laws of large samples DO NOT APPLY.
Chris Hanley put it very well..
Yes.
This link discusses the DORIS system which calculates the Jason satellite position to just less than 1cm. And they want us to believe they cn measure it to a tenth of a millimeter?
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/doris.html
” Doris, location by GPS and laser telemetry. The Doris system perfectly corresponds to the specifications required for the ocean’s topography observations and the amplitude of the observed phenomena: it is now enables to measure the satellite position on its orbit close to 1 cm. “
I’ve never seen a claim of instantaneous satellite altimetry measurement accuracy to a tenth of a millimeter . . . please cite the reference for that.
Instead what I’ve seen (and indeed is cited on the NOAA graph I posted above) is the statement that global SLR is “3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year”.
As a simple hypothetical to see how such a claim is mathematically and scientifically possible, suppose I have a satellite altimeter that is calibrated to be accurate to ± 1 cm three-sigma. In year 2000, it is flying on a satellite a takes one thousand measurements—with proper calibration of the satellites true altitude—that report sea-level to be 2 cm above a reference geoid (meaning it could actually be anywhere in range from +1 cm to +3 cm). In the year 2020 that same instrument design, flying on a different satellite—with the same attention to proper determination of the satellite’s true altitude—reports sea-level to be 5 cm above the same reference geoid based on the average of one thousand measurements (meaning it could actually be anywhere in the range from +4 to +6 cm). Based on these measurements that are separated in time, the lowest linear trend would be (4-3)/20 = 0.05 cm/year = 0.5 mm/year and the highest linear trend would be (6-1)/20 = 0.25 cm/yr = 2.5 mm/yr. The mathematical average of these two bounding trend lines would 1.5 ± 1 mm/yr.
So yes, this is a hypothetical case that show that measurements over time can produce average rates having greater apparent accuracy than one might think.
Big f’ing deal — Chevron doctrine overturned!
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665
Story tip
The gray-bearded Political Science professor on KTVU Ch.2 this morning moaned and whined that now … government bureaucrats can no longer interpret law and issue edicts. He moaned that 40 years!! of “settled law” was overturned by a supermajority right wing SCOTUS. Yeah … the ENEMY is squealing like pigs going to slaughter.
As for Chevron I know a lot about the EPA as I did one of the earliest Environmental Impact Statements. It was on a pipeline in southwest Louisiana, problem solving requiring a few pages, required homework, thought, analysis, and not my job to permit. During a period with competent and honest scientists evaluating actual problems it followed what might be called the “Bureaucratic Rule.” My engineer brother-in-law just gave me such dated 2002 to recycle for a pipeline in New Mexico. He had corrected a few pages, including one the environment. An engineer knew more about it like the presence of caliche. Pagination horrible, half inch thick, must be over a 100 pages with many obviously unimportant.
I have a little and helped produce students who worked for them, a lot indirectly. The situation now is that this obscures real problems, and could force some “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” A few environmental actions that I see nowadays indicate allowance of worse environmental damage than used to be analyzed. I am guessing that it started around 3 decades ago but rapidly rising.
More like 5 decades ago. Mid-70s.