Re the info graphic from NASA Kids on sea level rise, I recently got a call from my 12 yr old granddaughter in Miami. She was very troubled about glaciers melting and sea level rise due to global warming, something she had learned in a “science” class in school no doubt. Maybe the teacher used the NASA graphic to scare the kids in soon-to-be-inundated Miami.
If she was older I would send her your post on “landification”, but I’m afraid it’s over her head. What do we tell our kids who are being manipulated by distortions to “the science”. If NASA can spend our tax money to scare kids, how do we fight back?
The following is only observational. Google Earth has a timelapse feature where one can see aerial/satellite photos back to 1984 (40 yrs). I have zoomed in on places like Funafuti in Tuvalu and in Miami and run the playback for the full 40 years. Nothing stands out as a loss or gain. It might be fun to challenge readers to look around the globe and see if landification or oceanification is noticeable using this simplistic scheme and report back. I'd like to see those places where the media's "sky-is-falling" hype is justified after almost 1/2 century. Just a fun exercise, nothing more!
A globally averaged sea level rise measurement is only of modest value since the only important SLR is what ishappening at your location. Take for example the Netherlands. They have managed quite nicely even originally using muscle power,, draft animals, picks & shovels and wagons.
We need to adapt to local conditions. Expecting mitigation of CO2 to affect SLR is a fool's errand.
Question: NOAA/NASA provides SLR results to a tenth of a mm even though the DORIS system on the satellites advertises an uncertainty of 7-8mm. How do they justify that? https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/doris.html
not to belabor (we have agreed to disagree) but today I happened to run across a New Scientist article on biodiversity
"The findings don’t mean all species or populations worldwide are in decline. In fact, approximately half the populations show a stable or increasing trend, and half show a declining trend.
“Distilling the state of the world’s biodiversity to a single figure – or even a few figures – is incredibly difficult,” says Hannah Ritchie at Our World in Data. “It definitely fails to give us an accurate understanding of what the problem is and how we move forward.”
“I think a more appropriate and useful way to look at it is to focus on specific species or populations,” says Ritchie.
But Wright says the LPI is a useful tool that reflects the findings of other biodiversity metrics, such as the IUCN Red List and the Biodiversity Intactness Index. “All of those indices, they all scream that there is something going really very badly wrong,” says Wright."
Excellent post, thank you. The additional literature references (Mao, for example) add science to the common sense notion that sea level rise is far down the list of legitimate concerns. Also, Friedman posted a clear, common sense analysis of SLR in his substack post, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/a-climate-science-textbook.
Who cares about the average, since according to climate hypesters every individual place on Earth is warming at 2x, 3x, or more x than the global average, lol.
And in cases where sea level rise is significantly affecting land area, I wonder how the cost of building up the coastal areas with deep rooted trees & plants, concrete, rock & sand compares to that of reducing fossil emissions. I bet it's a whole lot less expensive.
Note that in Netherlands they farm up to 7m below sea level and are a wealthy country using dikes to expand land area, actually using tech to INCREASE land area. They are now the #2 agricultural exporter in the World while being #69 in population & #131 by area and not even a warm or sunny environment.
Oh dear, I can't believe that Roger believes the IPCC cherry picked data for 'sea level rises' - a good example of the seduction of the intellectuals. Sea level rises are MINIMAL and nothing to do with 'climate change'. Sea level rise is the LEAST of the world's problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-G6n2SMQY&ab_channel=CDN
So Roger, what is with the globalism that seems to come with climatism (and also biodiversityism) who cares about averages around the world? If the average came out to be 0, that wouldn't help the individual communities whose coastlines were expanding or shrinking... there's no there there with global averages. Another Emperor whose apparel should be questioned. IMHO.
Roger,
Re the info graphic from NASA Kids on sea level rise, I recently got a call from my 12 yr old granddaughter in Miami. She was very troubled about glaciers melting and sea level rise due to global warming, something she had learned in a “science” class in school no doubt. Maybe the teacher used the NASA graphic to scare the kids in soon-to-be-inundated Miami.
If she was older I would send her your post on “landification”, but I’m afraid it’s over her head. What do we tell our kids who are being manipulated by distortions to “the science”. If NASA can spend our tax money to scare kids, how do we fight back?
Thanks,
Grandpa Scott
The following is only observational. Google Earth has a timelapse feature where one can see aerial/satellite photos back to 1984 (40 yrs). I have zoomed in on places like Funafuti in Tuvalu and in Miami and run the playback for the full 40 years. Nothing stands out as a loss or gain. It might be fun to challenge readers to look around the globe and see if landification or oceanification is noticeable using this simplistic scheme and report back. I'd like to see those places where the media's "sky-is-falling" hype is justified after almost 1/2 century. Just a fun exercise, nothing more!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-08/why-are-hundreds-of-pacific-islands-getting-bigger/13038430
A globally averaged sea level rise measurement is only of modest value since the only important SLR is what ishappening at your location. Take for example the Netherlands. They have managed quite nicely even originally using muscle power,, draft animals, picks & shovels and wagons.
We need to adapt to local conditions. Expecting mitigation of CO2 to affect SLR is a fool's errand.
Question: NOAA/NASA provides SLR results to a tenth of a mm even though the DORIS system on the satellites advertises an uncertainty of 7-8mm. How do they justify that? https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/doris.html
not to belabor (we have agreed to disagree) but today I happened to run across a New Scientist article on biodiversity
"The findings don’t mean all species or populations worldwide are in decline. In fact, approximately half the populations show a stable or increasing trend, and half show a declining trend.
“Distilling the state of the world’s biodiversity to a single figure – or even a few figures – is incredibly difficult,” says Hannah Ritchie at Our World in Data. “It definitely fails to give us an accurate understanding of what the problem is and how we move forward.”
“I think a more appropriate and useful way to look at it is to focus on specific species or populations,” says Ritchie.
But Wright says the LPI is a useful tool that reflects the findings of other biodiversity metrics, such as the IUCN Red List and the Biodiversity Intactness Index. “All of those indices, they all scream that there is something going really very badly wrong,” says Wright."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2342176-wildlife-populations-are-declining-on-a-devastating-scale-says-wwf/
I guess we're not the only people/area of interest to have the same discussion!
Excellent post, thank you. The additional literature references (Mao, for example) add science to the common sense notion that sea level rise is far down the list of legitimate concerns. Also, Friedman posted a clear, common sense analysis of SLR in his substack post, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/a-climate-science-textbook.
Who cares about the average, since according to climate hypesters every individual place on Earth is warming at 2x, 3x, or more x than the global average, lol.
And in cases where sea level rise is significantly affecting land area, I wonder how the cost of building up the coastal areas with deep rooted trees & plants, concrete, rock & sand compares to that of reducing fossil emissions. I bet it's a whole lot less expensive.
Note that in Netherlands they farm up to 7m below sea level and are a wealthy country using dikes to expand land area, actually using tech to INCREASE land area. They are now the #2 agricultural exporter in the World while being #69 in population & #131 by area and not even a warm or sunny environment.
Extra good report, and you don't do bad ones.
Very important material that contradicts the impression of the general public.
Nice job Roger! Sorta sticks the pin on the donkey, doesn't it!
Oh dear, I can't believe that Roger believes the IPCC cherry picked data for 'sea level rises' - a good example of the seduction of the intellectuals. Sea level rises are MINIMAL and nothing to do with 'climate change'. Sea level rise is the LEAST of the world's problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-G6n2SMQY&ab_channel=CDN
So Roger, what is with the globalism that seems to come with climatism (and also biodiversityism) who cares about averages around the world? If the average came out to be 0, that wouldn't help the individual communities whose coastlines were expanding or shrinking... there's no there there with global averages. Another Emperor whose apparel should be questioned. IMHO.