Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

So you are arguing for anecdote over empiricism?

I don't think anyone fails to notice the degradation of the environment. As I've pointed out with nauseatingly frequent refrains, this is *my* major concern.

However you seem incapable of discerning the quite separate arguments of anthropogenic environmental degradation and the leftist political imperative of climate change alarmism, hence your willingness to misrepresent the link between these two.

Try not to bolt things down. I understand this part of ASF is intended to be for discussion. I also understand that to mean the free expression of our own views and ideas without the tie of references etc. A chat between us so to speak.

I am cognisant of your overall concerns of the full human footprint. And with you on that, particularly population growth.

However my FEELING is that the effects of coal and oil use is the bigger issue and that view should not be regarded as hysterical in the current climate.

 

[luutzu]

Climate science is a sham. It is called weather. Even then they cannot predict the weekend is going to be sunny but by God they can predict what is going to happen in 200 years ... no wait ... they cannot do that either. IPCC has been known to extend the truth of the matter at hand. So has many others of the same ilk. Not to say my brigade is much better but I am more of the WayenL philosophy. Let's do something about what we can control NOW and slow consumerism and pollutants and we will slowly turn the tide.

No point running around saying the ice sheets are going to melt and we are all going to drown because of man made Co2 ... mitigate the possibilities of what "might" occur. Nek Menit it is called "rationalism" but apparently this does not fit into the debate at the moment. Either you are a lying shrill (thanks NASA) or a Lord Monkgton to boot.

Evidence my dear adversary is what I am looking for. So much BS is being released and we as a population are shovelling it down our throats without question. It has been going on for millions of years. I learned it in year 9 Science about tectonic plates and subsidence and also igneous rocks, volcanoes, ice ages, hot periods, Greenland blah blah FERKIN blah ... shall I go on? To pin point this change we are experiencing on ONE thing and ONE thing only is farsical at best. Scientist are being proved wrong on both sides of the fence. MODERATE is the best answer and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

NASA comes out and says Antarctica is growing and not shrinking. Ice is thickening. 2011 they were the harbringers of doom and the world is stuffed. C'mon man get a grip ... bananas are radioactive but but but you have to eat a Kajillion of them to gain one isotope. Look at the press and how they manipulate what they want you to know. Look at the money thrown at IPCC and climatology and what do you reckon they will come out with in their studies??? OOOpppps sorry we were wrong and we don't want the millions in funding any more plus the quangos and the multi million dollar research grants and the ivory towers we work out of.

Banana is radioactive? dam.

Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?

So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?

 

[Knobby22]

IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.

I don't know which IPCC model is being quoted, it keeps being improved however the model is obviously wrong because el nino has such an influence on its result which means that one measure of global warming -probably ocean temperatures, is not accurate or not weighted correctly.

Now we have an El Nino I expect the next few years will show a large jump in global temperatures which will be above the IPCC model.

We are talking short term (weather) as against long term (climate).

BTW, plenty of money for scientists who will argue against global warming. Let's face it, that's where all the money is going, including to news outlets and expensive think tanks.

 

[Knobby22]

PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN


A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate | December 23, 2013

A shift to untraceable donations by organizations denying climate change undermines democracy, according to the author of a new study tracking contributions to such groups.

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

 

[Tisme]

Banana is radioactive? dam.

Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?

So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?

Merely micro climates on an international scale luutzu.

I see the Gold Coast is marketing to the Chinese tourists to take a break to a clean air environment, away from the smog, acid rain, etc.

 

[basilio]

How to bodgy up data to create false impressions

A few posts ago TS offered a simple graph purporting to show how out of line the IPPC predictions of global warming were. It looked like this



So what wrong with it and how was it crafted to deliberately mislead people?

The problem with the picture is that they have used a baseline of 1990 (which happened to be a peak in the observations), rather than the proper procedure of a 30 year baseline. The trick is if you pick a particular single year baseline you can make it give any result you want, you can make it look like the models over-predict temperatures by baselining to a warm year, or you can make them look as if they are running cooler by baselining to a cold year.

Of course the other trick was to leave out the last 2-3 years climate figures which tell another story.

So how can this sleight-of-hand be seen across the full data set ?

This is another graph with the HADCRUT4 Date base figures


The graph shows two lines representing completely accurate representations of the rate of warming, but starting from different points in the vertical axis depending on your choice of baselines.

So the top green line represents a "skeptics" presentation, where the observations and projection were baselined to the peak in the observations so that the observations are then generally below the projection. This is how you can create the headlines "IPCC models over predict warming" .

The blue line at the bottom is an "alarmist" presentation, where the observations and projections were baselined to a trough in the observations, so that the observations are generally higher than the projection. That way you get headlines of "IPCC models underpredict warming"

The magenta line in the middle however represents the scientific presentation (in this case it is just the OLS trend line), where the offset hasn't been cherry picked to support the desired argument.

Cheers

 

[basilio]

You know what is really interesting with regard to the effects of CO2 on Climate Change ?

Fifty years ago ( in 1965..) President Johnson science advisory committee sent him a report which noted the problems with increases in CO2 and lead concentrations in the environment.

Fifty years ago today, as the American Association for the Advancement of Science highlighted, US president Lyndon Johnson’s science advisory committee sent him a report entitled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. The introduction to the report noted:

Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air and the lead concentrations in ocean waters and human populations.

The report included a section on atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change, written by prominent climate scientists Roger Revelle, Wallace Broecker, Charles Keeling, Harmon Craig, and J Smagorisnky. Reviewing the document today, one can’t help but be struck by how well these scientists understood the mechanisms of Earth’s climate change 50 years ago.

The report noted that within a few years, climate models would be able to reasonably project future global surface temperature changes. In 1974, one of its authors, Wallace Broecker did just that in a paper titled Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?.

You can read the details about this paper and Broecker’s modeling here and in my book Climatology versus Pseudoscience. His model only included the effects of carbon dioxide and his best estimates of natural climate cycles. It didn’t include the warming effects of other greenhouse gases, or the cooling effects of human aerosol pollution, but fortunately for Broecker those two effects have roughly canceled each other out over the past 40 years.

Broecker’s model predicted the global warming anticipated by 2015 both from carbon pollution alone, and when including his best estimate of natural climate cycles. In the figure below, the carbon-caused warming is shown in blue, and in combination with natural cycles (which Broecker turns out not to have represented very accurately) in green, as compared to the observed global surface temperatures from NOAA in red. As you can see, the climate model predictions from over 40 years ago turned out to be remarkably accurate.
Broecker prediction



Wallace Broecker’s 1974 climate model global warming predictions vs NOAA observations. Created by Dana Nuccitelli.

The 1965 report also debunked a number of myths that climate contrarians continue to repeat to this day. For example, the first section of the climate chapter is titled Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels – the Invisible Pollutant. Although the US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant in alandmark 2007 case, many contrarians object to this description. Nevertheless, climate scientists realized a half century ago that human carbon emissions qualify as pollution due to the dangers they pose via climate change.

The report noted that although carbon dioxide is an invisible “trace gas” – meaning it comprises a small percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere as a whole – it can nevertheless have significant impacts on the climate at these seemingly low levels. As the scientists wrote:

Only about one two-thousandth of the atmosphere and one ten-thousandth of the ocean are carbon dioxide. Yet to living creatures, these small fractions are of vital importance … Within a few short centuries, we are returning to the air a significant part of the carbon that was slowly extracted by plants and buried in the sediments during half a billion years.

Contrarians today often repeat the myths that because carbon dioxide is invisibleand only a trace gas, it can’t possibly cause significant climate change. This report demonstrates that scientists understood the greenhouse effect better 50 years ago than these contrarians do today.

The report documented the several different lines of evidence that prove the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is entirely human-caused, concluding:

We can conclude with fair assurance that at the present time, fossil fuels are the only source of CO2 being added to the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system.

This is yet another fact understood by climate scientists 50 years ago that some contrarians, including a few favorite contrarian climate scientists like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry, continue to cast doubt upon to this day.

The report also projected how much the atmospheric carbon dioxide level would increase in the following decades.

Based on projected world energy requirements, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (1956) has estimated an amount of fossil fuel combustion by the year 2000 that with our assumed partitions would give about a 25 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, compared to the amount present during the 19th Century.

A 25% increase from pre-industrial levels would result in about 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The United Nations underestimated the growth in fossil fuel combustion, because the actual carbon dioxide level in 2000 was 370 ppm.

In addition to rising temperatures, the report discussed a variety of “other possible effects of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide”, including melting of the Antarctic ice cap, rise of sea level, warming of sea water, increased acidity of fresh waters (which also applies to the danger of ocean acidification, global warming’s evil twin), and an increase in plant photosynthesis.

These climate scientists warned President Johnson in 1965 not just of the dangers associated with human-caused global warming, but also that we might eventually have to consider geoengineering the climate to offset that warming and the risks that we’re causing by inadvertently running a dangerous experiment with the Earth’s climate.]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientists-warned-president-global-warming-50-years-ago-today.html

 

[Tisme]

How to bodgy up data to create false impressions

A few posts ago TS offered a simple graph purporting to show how out of line the IPPC predictions of global warming were. It looked like this



So what wrong with it and how was it crafted to deliberately mislead people?

The problem with the picture is that they have used a baseline of 1990 (which happened to be a peak in the observations), rather than the proper procedure of a 30 year baseline. The trick is if you pick a particular single year baseline you can make it give any result you want, you can make it look like the models over-predict temperatures by baselining to a warm year, or you can make them look as if they are running cooler by baselining to a cold year.

Of course the other trick was to leave out the last 2-3 years climate figures which tell another story.

So how can this sleight-of-hand be seen across the full data set ?

This is another graph with the HADCRUT4 Date base figures
[

The graph shows two lines representing completely accurate representations of the rate of warming, but starting from different points in the vertical axis depending on your choice of baselines.

So the top green line represents a "skeptics" presentation, where the observations and projection were baselined to the peak in the observations so that the observations are then generally below the projection. This is how you can create the headlines "IPCC models over predict warming" .

The blue line at the bottom is an "alarmist" presentation, where the observations and projections were baselined to a trough in the observations, so that the observations are generally higher than the projection. That way you get headlines of "IPCC models underpredict warming"

The magenta line in the middle however represents the scientific presentation (in this case it is just the OLS trend line), where the offset hasn't been cherry picked to support the desired argument.

Cheers

I remember seeing a graph somewhere that shows the CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide gases steady state from AD1000 then the industrial revolution 1850's mark a kick up in and then an increased rate in the 1950's. I'm not sure if it was Charles Keeling's work that it is based on?

The CO2 levels since the late 1950's are something like 315PPM and now it's 375PPM and the point of no return is apparently 450PPM.

There's a worry the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic and other oceans will cease and that can't be good.

 

[basilio]

Do you remember the story I ran a few weeks ago which highlighted the scope of knowledge that Exxon scientists had regarding Global Warming ? The short story is that in the late 70's/early 80's scientists employed by Exxon were amongst the leaders in climate science research and made explicitly clear to the Board the consequences of continued CO2 production through burning fossil fuels.

Basically we were going to cook the planet.

Faced with these reports Exxon did what one would expect of them. They closed down the research, buried and ignored the reports and then started and funded a systematic program of misinformation around climate change and its cause.

Anyway the chickens might be coming home to roost.

Is Big Oil about to have its Big Tobacco moment?
By Jesse Bragg on 7 Nov 2015 1 comment

On Thursday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into ExxonMobil to determine if there is evidence that the corporation lied to the public or investors about the risks of climate change. The investigation was spurred by an exposé by InsideClimate News that revealed that the corporation had intimate knowledge of climate change and its role in driving it for decades but chose to bury the truth.

The inquiry comes on the heels of calls from members of Congress, presidential candidates, former vice president and environmentalist Al Gore, and a coalition of environmental groups for the federal government to launch an investigation. If it’s anything like what happened to the tobacco industry, it is possible that more states will join New York in the investigation and more fossil fuel corporations could be pulled in. If that happens, Big Oil could find itself exactly where Big Tobacco’s lies and deception landed it almost two decades ago ”” at the losing end of dozens of state and federal lawsuits.

In the late 1990s, after numerous calls for federal inquiry, a series of lawsuits against the United States’ largest tobacco corporations forced the release of millions of internal documents that confirmed that Big Tobacco knew ”” and obscured ”” the true health effects of its products. These documents also definitively proved for the first time that the industry had actively sought to cast doubt and deliberately mislead the public about the harms of its products since the 1950s. The revelations changed the way people and policymakers alike viewed the industry. Big Tobacco would forever be known as an obstacle ”” not a partner ”” to meaningful public health policymaking.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/is-big-oil-about-to-have-its-big-tobacco-moment/

 

[wayneL]

How curious basilio.

Exxon funded research which agrees with your Apocalypse fantasy is taken as gospel.

Yet (purportedly) Exxon funded research which probably reflects a more realistic scenario, must be tainted.

How predictable.

 

[trainspotter]

How curious basilio.

Exxon funded research which agrees with your Apocalypse fantasy is taken as gospel.

Yet (purportedly) Exxon funded research which probably reflects a more realistic scenario, must be tainted.

How predictable.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Waiting for the Mount Pinatubo jibe to sink in before responding in kind.

Ohhh F@CK it .. if he can use the Guardian so can I ....

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

 

[basilio]

Congratulations TS !!! You have won First, Second AND Third Prize !!!

In fact you swept the pool mate. Can't believe how you managed to find that absolutely critical piece of IPCC flim flam that totally discredited the entire body of work around climate change.

Just xxxxxxxxx unbelievable mate. Take a bow.

You can now officially join Wayne and Noco as equal supreme masters of the universe and in particular the dismantlement of Climate Change research.

Cheers.

__________________________________________________

By the Wayne I'm not sure if Exxon did fund other research to "prove" that global warming/climate change was all it was cracked up to be.

They just channelled all their money through the tried and tested tobacco lobby players who had 50 years of success in denying the effects of smoking on health.

You can't beat results like that can you ? Certainly wouldn't to waste it on research anyway.. (unless you make absolutely sure the results fall your way..)

_____________________________________

pps. do you have even the teesiest, weeniset comment to make on the credibility of theat bodgy graph you threw up ? probably not ....

 

[trainspotter]

Banana is radioactive? dam.

Did you also learn Newton's Laws too? For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction; an object is stationary until a force acts on it... things like that?

So all the automobiles, fossil fuel powered machinery, the coal powered stations... all the modern stuff that weren't around until just last century, producing CO2 by the millions of tonnes... they have no effect on the environment, no effect on the air and atmosphere?

Yeah you need to eat 3,500 per annum of them to get a buzz or about 10 a day to be 3% chance of getting a cancerous causing cell ... whatever.

E=Mc2 is part of societal law ERGO Newton's Law (Theorised in 1905) . This also is up for debate ...

Einstein wanted to believe that “matter” could be converted into energy (photons) at a time when he didn’t even know about antimatter. This cannot happen. In the case where an electron and positron annihilate completely into photons, it is not only matter but also antimatter that is being converted to photons. To make a photon requires an equal quantity of positive matter (positron) and negative matter (electron). There is no way to convert ordinary matter into photons except in the extremely small quantities produced by atomic radiation.

http://www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html

Nope .. not what I have said ANYWHERE ... Man is polluting this planet and it needs to change dramatically in the way we see how we fit in with the environment. Plastic dumped on the land ends in the ocean for instance ...

The North Pacific sub-tropical gyre covers a large area of the Pacific, in which the water circulates clockwise in a slow spiral. Winds are light and the currents tend to push any floating material into the low energy centre of the gyre. There are few islands on which some of the floating material beaches. So most of it stays there in the gyre, in astounding quantities - estimated at six kilos of plastic for every kilo of plankton. The “Trash Vortex”, also known as the “Eastern Garbage Patch”, is an area equivalent in size to Texas, or Turkey, or Afghanistan, that slowly rotates our rubbish in a never-ending rotation..

http://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ns/fit-for-the-future/pollution/trash-vortex/



Let's fix this and then talk seriously about pumping Co2 into the atmosphere

Oh wait I forgot about this little pet hate of mine in Indonesia ...

Haze from Indonesian forest fires has spread to the Philippines, disrupting air traffic and prompting warnings for residents to wear face masks, authorities say.

The southern Philippine island of Mindanao is more than 1,200 kilometres from the nearest fires but the haze has become a worsening problem across the island over the past week, aviation authorities said.

It spread to the country's central islands of Cebu and Negros on Friday, disrupting air traffic, Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines spokesman Eric Apolonio said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-24/indonesian-haze-reaches-the-philippines/6881564

And you want to whinge about cars and factories in first world countries ??? Bring it on !!!!!!!!!! :shoot::shoot:

You want cause and effect on the atmosphere?? Try India for example ...

http://aqicn.org/map/india/#@g/24.0238/78.7424/4z

Of the world’s top 20 polluted cities, 13 are in India compared to just three in China. Air pollution slashes life expectancy by 3.2 years for the 660 million Indians who live in cities, including Delhi. In China, the corresponding dip is marginally lower at three years.
The Ganga and Yamuna are ranked among the world’s 10 most polluted rivers. China has just one. An evaluation in February ranked Vapi in Gujarat and Sukinda in Odisha among the 10 most environmentally-degraded zones in the world. China had no entries on the list.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...ee-in-china/story-myTrPZM8DHmQOhxB9cc5hI.html

So before you write me off as a Lord Monckton ass kisser and Denier you might want to look at what is going on globally that is affecting the world before claiming rubbish (pun intended) facts.

 

[trainspotter]

Congratulations TS !!! You have won First, Second AND Third Prize !!!

In fact you swept the pool mate. Can't believe how you managed to find that absolutely critical piece of IPCC flim flam that totally discredited the entire body of work around climate change.

Just xxxxxxxxx unbelievable mate. Take a bow.

You can now officially join Wayne and Noco as equal supreme masters of the universe and in particular the dismantlement of Climate Change research.

Cheers.

__________________________________________________

By the Wayne I'm not sure if Exxon did fund other research to "prove" that global warming/climate change was all it was cracked up to be.

They just channelled all their money through the tried and tested tobacco lobby players who had 50 years of success in denying the effects of smoking on health.

You can't beat results like that can you ? Certainly wouldn't to waste it on research anyway.. (unless you make absolutely sure the results fall your way..)

_____________________________________

pps. do you have even the teesiest, weeniset comment to make on the credibility of theat bodgy graph you threw up ? probably not ....

DERP !! I actually wrote this but you ignored it ...

IPCC has been know to extend their predictions based on their modelling. The graph I supplied EVIDENCED what they predicted and what ACTUALLY occurred in real time. Meh ... another fraudulent claim I suspect.

Crack on then basilio ... it appears you have something to prove old chum?

 

[trainspotter]

I don't know which IPCC model is being quoted, it keeps being improved however the model is obviously wrong because el nino has such an influence on its result which means that one measure of global warming -probably ocean temperatures, is not accurate or not weighted correctly.

Now we have an El Nino I expect the next few years will show a large jump in global temperatures which will be above the IPCC model.

We are talking short term (weather) as against long term (climate).

BTW, plenty of money for scientists who will argue against global warming. Let's face it, that's where all the money is going, including to news outlets and expensive think tanks.

Yes for sure K22 the science is improving and slowly we are understanding as to what is happening to Earth. We spin on this blue planet at the equator at 1675 km/h in a solar system the size of less than a grain of rice from what we know in the universe thus far. Getting deep huh?

The topic of this thread is to avoid HYSTERIA ... glaciers will melt by 2035 (IPCC predictions) Global Warming will raise sea levels by 8 to 25 metres cause it happened over 2 and a half million years ago cause the temperature was 2 degrees hotter then ... REALLY ??? Crops will fail and typhoons, floods, disasters, cyclones will become stronger and more prevalent and salmon will die has been thrown up on these boards so far. What a lot of HYSTERIA.

Yep ... the world is getting hotter. My hair is getting greyer and I am getting wiser and the more I see of it the more it remains, samma samma dong ! (translation .... still the same mate!)

 

[trainspotter]

https://video.fper2-1.fna.fbcdn.net...=a6818413e9b9b272ad35feb68dfa8f36&oe=5640A353

What I have been saying ....

 

[Smurf1976]

The topic of this thread is to avoid HYSTERIA ...

If anyone wants Hysteria then fear not, Def Leppard are touring in Australia next week. Pretty sure they'll be playing a few songs from that album and probably the title track itself.

Back on topic, 2 months without any significant rain in Tas and already the media is starting to fill with people saying that we'll die of thirst, burn to the ground or at least be left in the dark.

Whilst the weather has certainly been incredibly dry, there's no doubt about that, we're a very long way from a crisis at this point. Impacts on farmers yes and bushfires possibly, but the rest is just unnecessary alarmist nonsense really and there's no need to be stocking up on bottled water and candles anytime soon.

Unfortunately this is what happens once the public notices that the weather's a bit unusual. Queue the "will never rain again" sort of predictions...

 

[Ijustnewit]

The ABC and it's climate hysteria and scaremongering at it finest. What a load of codswollop this article is.
Nothing but crap , I love how they have photo shopped the picture of the Sydney Opera House Forecourt. Clearly if the water/tide was up that high against that break wall any passing ferry would have caused enough wash to send water flowing over the top into those eateries. So the ABC have clearly photo shopped the water level !
And the article itself is just rubbish , showing before and after photos of major cities around the world under water because of a 2 degree temperature change. Anyone out there noticed any change out there in their sea side city ?
Hobart water and tide levels certainly the same as they have always been here , no new tide marks ect showing rising levels . The climate change brigade has really started to ramp up the we all going to drown argument of late . Why ? because fear is money .


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-...ct-megacities-with-surging-sea-levels/6924328

 

[explod]

What a lot of HYSTERIA.

Yep ... the world is getting hotter. My hair is getting greyer and I am getting wiser and the more I see of it the more it remains, samma samma dong ! (translation .... still the same mate!)

Yeh, the earth was a gas fired ball of fire 5 billion years back.

It should be getting cooler, BUT IT IS NOT.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Also to add to the above research ( google ) shows that the East Coast Of Tasmania is a sea temperature hotspot.
This article states " that since the 1960's that Tasmania's East Coast sea temperature has risen 0.8 c" .
Certainly there is plenty of evidence to support this like fish from warmer climes moving in and some native species in the area unable to cope.
But the article puts into focus the bogus claims about sea levels rising , if a 2c rise causes 8 to 25 meters in sea levels a 0.8 c rise would surely show some rise in relative meters wouldn't it ? So why isn't that Hobart and the East Coast towns in Tasmania are not being washed away ? Food for thought

http://www.redmap.org.au/article/sea-temperatures-and-climate-change-in-tasmania/