Global Warming

Meters of Sea Level Rise and MegaBoulder-Heaving Superstorms Thanks to Global Warming

Also carbon emissions rate highest in 66 million years

|

SinkingEarth
Dreamstime: George Kollidas

A new paper, "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming could be dangerous," just out by climatologist James Hansen and his colleagues predicts that all climatic hell could break loose if average global temperature rises by another 1 degree Celsius. Appearing in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, the researchers combine paleoclimate data with computer modeling to suggest that increased warming will exponentially increase ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica. The cold freshwater from the melting glaciers will trap warmer ocean water beneath which in turn will further melt the edges of the Antarctic ice sheets that are grounded below sea level. The result will be very similar to the last interglacial period, the Eemian, which stretched from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During the Eemian temperatures were only a few tenths of a degree warmer and sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher than at present.

In addition, the Hansen and his colleagues suggest that colder ocean surface water will intensify atmospheric temperature gradients. This could have two effects—more intense storms and perhaps the shutting down of the Gulf Stream which would make Europe considerably less balmy. How intense might the storms become? Hansen points to boulders in the Bahamas that he argues were thrown up from the sea by superstorms to their current resting places on land. Combining superstorms with higher sea levels is not a recipe for happy coastal living.

According to the authors, the upshot is:

There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical.

Interestingly, Hansen's paper follows a new paleoclimate study that looks at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) that occurred 56 million years ago. In their Nature Geoscience article, "Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during past 66 million years," the researchers find that global carbon dioxide levels increased over a period of 4,000 years during the initial phase of the PETM at a rate of roughly 1 gigaton (1 billion tons) of per year. Eventually between 2,500 and 4,500 gigatons of carbon was released into the atmosphere and oceans. As a result, global average temperatures quickly increased by around 5 degrees Celsius. One consequence of the PETM carbon release was that lots of species went extinct in the oceans evidently due to ocean acidification caused of higher levels of dissolved carbion dioxide.

Currently, humanity is releasing about 10 gigatons of carbon annually. So far we have released about 540 gigatons: 230 gigatons into the atmosphere; 155 gigatons into the oceans; and 160 gigatons into the land. As of now average global temperature has increased by around 1 degree Celsius over the pre-industrial level. The researchers conclude…

…that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a 'no-analogue' state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.

Since both papers essentially predict swift changes as consequence of the levels of carbon dioxide we are releasing, we should know soon if they are right. Let's hope that they are wrong.

Advertisement

NEXT: Nixon Invented the Drug War to Decimate Hippies and Black People, Former Adviser Confesses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. P….: Three e’s make it huger! Fixed now. Thanks.

      1. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to, at the very least, hear one of these government funded stooges acknowledge that ACC is a weak theory at best? Certainly the weakness of the argument is supported by the 100’s of predictions that have yet to come true.

        Kind of like the nuts that call for armegeddon every time there is an eclipse. Same psycho logic that only complete idiots buy over and over again.

  1. Let’s hope that they are wrong.

    Considering how wrong they usually are, its a safe hope.

    1. let’s bet that they are wrong.

    2. Isn’t this the same old tired CAGW scenario.

      “Yes, temperatures won’t go up by much. BUT, just a leeetle warmer will trigger all these positive feedback loops and BANG – everyone dies. Even though its been that warm in the past without catastrophic cascading events.”

      Sorry, still not buying it.

    3. Bailey, Could you broker some communications with Hansen, etc? I’d like to start laying some serious wagers against their predictions.

  2. “out by climatologist James Hansen”

    I object to calling him that.

    1. Someone’s spoiling for a multi-year expensive libel lawsuit…

      1. Loretta Lynch is looking for you guys…

  3. Since both papers essentially predict swift changes as consequence of the levels of carbon dioxide we are releasing, we should know soon if they are right.

    Have they ever been right?

    And this comes from somebody who believes that anthropogenic global warming actually exists (as in humans are having an effect on the climate, though not nearly to the extent that the climate doomsayers seem to be saying)

    1. Have they ever been right?

      No. But they will be this time! It’s almost too late, so repent ye sinners!

    2. I don’t understand why the loud public voices insist on catastrophic scenarios. I mean, I get that they thought it would be the easiest way to mobilize people but it hasn’t worked.

      So why not say, “look we think there’s a better than 50/50 chance that climate change is going to have some detrimental effects. In order to counteract these, we suggest the following changes that will place some limitations on people but won’t create a stone age economy.”

      I know a number of environmentalists and fellow-travelers who actually believe the draconian policies promoted by climate change extremists will make a better world.

      1. Because there’s no funding for a gradual and managable change over three centuries.

      2. What’s the fun in calmly solving the problem when you can otherwise use it to control everyone’s life?

      3. “So why not say, “look we think there’s a better than 50/50 chance that climate change is going to have some detrimental effects.”

        Now, at the same time, there’s a 100% chance that warming will have many beneficial effects. OH NO! Someone other than the government is picking winners and losers! THE HUMANITY!

    3. “humans are having an effect on the climate, though not nearly to the extent that the climate doomsayers seem to be saying”

      DENIER!

  4. I think whenever the guy is mentioned, his book title should be included

    e.g. – James Hansen…. Author of “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. “(2009)

    1. Or at least publish the date of his last doomsaying.

  5. There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

    Unlike the real danger that we have a climate system that is practically out of our control?

    1. a climate system that is practically out of their control.

      The pretense that mankind has any “Control” over the climate is what is so absurd to begin with.

        1. I was unable to find my name on that list. Remarkably, all of the deniers are republican. what a strange coincidence?

      1. Just for fun:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare

        Not that we have control over it, mind you, but we sure know how to use it to our advantage when it comes to drowning people. Consequences be damned; although I haven’t read a serious discussion of what, if any, the long term consequence were of the Ho Chi Minh train seedings.

    2. Beat me to it: This is the most ridiculous statement ever uttered.

      These bozos would do well to read the story about King Canute. Nobody has ever controlled the climate system. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

      1. Wrong Top.Men. Including King what’s-his-face, who didn’t even have the common sense to get off a beach as the tide came in..

    3. Well this will go very nicely with giving them a government debt that will be impossible to repay…

    4. Yeah, I read those words and had to reread them. I still find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent person wrote them.

  6. Just more proof that we immediate, and more draconian, governmentally enforced central planning.

    Science proves it!

  7. There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

    Wait! The climate system is under our control now?

    1. ONLY IF YOU VOTE FOR LEFT WINGERS

    2. It’ll be too much, even for Gaea.

    3. The CIA can control the weather. I saw it in the documentary American Dad.

  8. Here’s a brief list of “tipping points”, all of which have long since passed.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/20…..ing-point/

    1. Correction, many of which we’ve passed. It appears that they’re still issuing new tipping points what we haven’t reached yet. For instance, we’re right in the middle of a 96 month tipping point issued in 2009.

    2. from that piece =

      2009 James Hansen tells Obama = “President ‘has four years to save Earth

      That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.

      Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. “We cannot afford to put off change any longer,” said Hansen. “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”

      He reminds me of an Evil robot from a 1950s sci-fi film. “THE PLANET WILL BE DESTROYED IN 24 OF YOUR EARTH-DAYS IF SUBMISSION IS NOT TOTAL”

      1. Reminds me of the cults that say ” the world is going to end, or Jesus will come back, or the spaceship will come on date X”, then when date X rolls around and nothing happens, they put it out another couple of years.
        Of course, by then their followers have sold all their possessions or drank the kool aid, or sentenced billions of people to poverty and preindustrial standards of living.

        1. Re: DenverJ

          Most of these yahoos are Marxians disguised as “scientists”. They give themselves away precisely because their predictions are outlandish, preposterous and completely off the mark yet some people still regard them as serious scientists rather than the mountebanks they truly are.

    3. Dr. James E. Hansen of the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Institute for Space Studies said research by his institute showed that because of the “greenhouse effect” that results when gases prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures would rise early in the next century to “well above any level experienced in the past 100,000 years.” Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Dr. Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.

      –Philip Shabecoff, “Swifter Warming of Globe Foreseen,” New York Times, June 11, 1986.

      From: Epstein, Alex (2014-11-13). The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

  9. As long as there is money to be made from religion, it will never be wrong.

  10. Meters of Sea Level Rise and MegaBoulder-Heaving Superstorms…

    And “climate deniers” in prison if the AG has her way. All thanks to Global Warming.

  11. we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

    Umm…

    1. Well, we are already going to hand them massive debt so we might as well pile it on.

  12. We need to start building that boat to the 22nd century.

  13. Appearing in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, the researchers [James Hansen and his colleagues] combine paleoclimate data with computer modeling to suggest that increased warming will exponentially increase ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica

    “Our computer model is much better than all the other computer models that predicted we should be living in Water World by now!”

    I’m venturing a guess, because I am not going to ascribe this insistence on relying on computer models to predict what multi-variable systems will do tomorrow on mere stupidity; but I’m guessing Harper has a few alimony payments he has to pay or he has a big remodeling job in his house for which he needs some cash and making another grandiose prediction is somehow the meal ticket for him. Because why would he subject himself to the inevitable ridicule when his predictions fail to pass? it is not like the other predictions proved to be true, what makes HIS so special?

    1. Because why would he subject himself to the inevitable ridicule

      Inevitable ridicule? From where? The “deniers” he’d never debase himself to read or engage with?

    2. Climatologists can already pinpoint with 100% accuracy how many hurricanes will hit the Atlantic and Caribbean and exactly how they will track and where they will hit and at what strength this next season which is three months away.
      Therefore it is natural that they can do the same for a period much further away

    3. I live this. Assuming that carbon emissions have the effect that out competely inaccurate ths far models have been using, these ither horrible things will happen!

      Uh, how about you tweak your model until it doesn’t diverge from measurements first guys, then use the CO2 parameter from that in your new models? I’m glad these guys don’t design process control systems.
      “Well, we assumed negative feedback, so we were pretty aggressive on the PID settings and – ohmy God! Everything is on fire!”

      1. Just assume everything has positive feedback so you can never turn it on.

    4. Because why would he subject himself to the inevitable ridicule when his predictions fail to pass? it is not like the other predictions proved to be true, what makes HIS so special?

      For the same reason why that guy on the corner with a placard predicting “The World Will End On Tuesday – Repent” goes home and makes a new sign when the world doesn’t end.

      He’s nuts.

      1. Why does he need to make a new sign? Can’t he just use the same one?

        1. Imagine if one started paying this sign-bearing individual six figures a year plus a seven figure ‘research’ budget for ever-better-glitzier signage? And all-expenses paid vacations conventions to locales like Cancun and Paris every year. The likes of Jessica Alba might even pat this person on the head from time to time.

          What an intensely motivated crazy person that would be.

    5. I’m kinda curious about the resolution and quality of that paleoclimate data, myself.

      Just how accurately can we interpolate temperature and CO2 content from millions of years ago, anyway? What’s the error bar on that stuff?

      1. The found the Rosetta Weather Gage.

      2. Re: R C Dean,

        Just how accurately can we interpolate temperature and CO2 content from millions of years ago, anyway? What’s the error bar on that stuff?

        You can’t question the data that God put there Himself.

      3. CO2 you get from ice cores. There’s some controversy over bias introduced by that, but it’s generally accepted (probably one of the few real “consensuses” is climastrology). Temperature you get from proxies, preferably not single tree Bristlecone Pine proxies…

  14. There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

    Is the ‘climate system’ practically under our control now?

    Do James Hansen and his colleagues believe in HAARP?

  15. There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.

    Begs the question. When was the climate in control? Or under whose control?

    Why are we even giving this charlatan a forum?

    1. Begs the question. When was the climate in control? Or under whose control?

      Darth Cheney

      1. Halliburton Hurricane Machine!

        1. Monsanto Starvation Storm.

  16. Well, I totally take everything that James Hansen says as gospel.

    In much more serious and sad news, Rob Ford is dead.

    Rob Ford dead

    1. That sucks. He was the only politician (besides Biden) who could compete with the Trumpken for shear lulz. Oh well.

      1. I am amazed it was cancer that got him, and not a sweaty Chris Farley drugs’n’manic fatty flame-out.

  17. Um, ahem, scuse me. Yea, even if this latest prediction was accurate, isn’t it true that 66 million years ago there were herds of animals the size of trucks and buildings all over the place? So tell me again why a warmer more productive planet would be bad? As hard it would be to handle I would love me some ribs from a 5 ton hog… just sayin.

    On the otherhand one incorrect model leads to another incorrect model ad infinitum so it would seem. Wake me up when shit gets real.

    1. some ribs from a 5 ton hog

      Wouldn’t they taste like chicken?

      1. Would be funny watching hipsters try to keep some – unless they were your neighbors.

  18. We need to put up a wall to keep out the warmth!

    1. And the Mexicans will pay for it!

  19. Hansen points to boulders in the Bahamas that he argues were thrown up from the sea by superstorms to their current resting places on land. Combining superstorms with higher sea levels is not a recipe for happy coastal living.

    I really want to see the evidence of these alleged ‘boulder hurling’ superstorms. Methinks Hansen is the climate science version of Eric Von Daniken and all the ancient alien wackos who followed him.

    Ron, could you ask Hansen if he’s sure that aliens didn’t move those boulders?

    1. I too am interested in this supposed superstorm that “hurled boulders on to land”.

      Did he mean maybe a Tsunami? Maybe an asteroid impact?

      He’s also lamenting the fact that we “won’t be able to control the climate” which ranks up there with one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard an supposed intellectual say. so who knows.

      1. It’s stone giants at play.

        1. Well, everyone knows that the stone giants were aliens, duh!

    2. There were vast floods in recent geologic times in Pacific Northwest Columbia watershed concurrent with retreat of Laurentian sheet. Such episodes did indeed move huge boulders to random places where none should seemingly be today. Hansen probably vacuumed that tidbit up somewhere, and incorporated it cooking up his personal Atlantis.

  20. Well, maybe my brother’s father in law (recently passed away) was on to something.

    The ark is still there, maybe have to see if my brother will have a half interest when The Water hits the fan…

    http://journaltimes.com/news/l…..53939.html

  21. Like I’m gonna trust what a fucking puppeteer has to say about the climate.

    1. Am I the only person who remembers the Muppets? Seriously?

      1. Are we sure that it’s the puppeteer and not somebody suffering the aftereffects of too many hockey fights during the 70’s?

    2. They’re pretty evil.

    1. What does a bowl of petunia’s have to do with anything?

  22. Beyond parody.

  23. Worth noting the background in which that study has been released- that being this past February’s global temperatures.

    February was the hottest February on record. The global temperature in Feb. had the highest departure from average on record. And the highest 6 months of “departure from record” are the previous 6 months.

    Records are usually broken by hundredths of degrees. February broke the record by about one half degree F.

    And over land showed more than a 4 degree F difference.

    Past the time for just hoping, Ronald.

    1. I only had to buy heating oil twice this winter, and only had to fire up the snowblower four times.

      Bring it on! Woo hoo! I want more!

    2. Even your friends at UAH were stunned by February’s numbers.

      1. Jack, keep picking them cherries. Never gets old.
        Actually it does, Fuck off, you ignoramus.

    3. So let’s see if I’ve got this right:
      – there’s ~125 years of data “on record”
      – Earth is ~4,600,000,000 years old
      – ergo, we have “on record” ~.000000027 of the total Earth’s history

      I know that numbers are hard but that’s a mighty small portion there, Ace.

    4. I’m sure the government will get right on fixing this, but they’re currently preoccupied with all this “democracy” bullshit.

      Anyway, if the impending doom bothers you, just remember: we did get Obamacare through.

    5. Considering the source of that simpleton scrawling, I doubt it’s convincing to anyone with an IQ of over 40.

    6. Worth noting the background in which that study has been released- that being this past February’s global temperatures.

      It is due to the El Ni?o you idiot.

    7. Worth noting the background in which that study has been released- that being this past February’s global temperatures.

      Remember when a month of unusually cold temperatures was just weather, not climate, and didn’t mean anything in the big picture?

      Yeah, neither does Jack.

    8. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Worth noting the background in which that study has been released- that being this past February’s global temperatures.

      So what, Jackass? Hansen is making his outlandish predictions based on an entirely different baseline and the much vaunted computer models.

      Records are usually broken by hundredths of degrees.

      You mean like in NASCAR?

    9. What was that? I couldn’t hear you over all of the cheering.

      The year at a glance

      2015 saw the lowest losses of any year since 2009. Overall losses totalled US$ 90bn (previous year US$ 110bn), of which roughly US$ 27bn (US$ 31bn) was insured.
      The loss amounts were also below the long-term inflation-adjusted average for the period 1985?2014 (overall losses US$ 130bn, insured losses US$ 34bn).
      The natural catastrophes of the past year claimed 23,000 lives, substantially more than the previous year’s figure of 7,700. However, the number of victims was still some way below the annual average for the last 30 years (54,000).

      About that catastrophe…

    10. Ah JackassAce. Like a moth to a flame on a climate thread.

    11. Is it also worth noting the actual measurement techniques employed by NOAA and how they literally make up numbers for cooler rural stations?

      Additionally, is it worth noting that there are only accurate temperature readings going back, at most, a few hundred years out of billions?

      Guess not.

  24. “Eventually between 2,500 and 4,500 gigatons of carbon was released into the atmosphere and oceans. As a result, global average temperatures quickly increased by around 5 degrees Celsius.”

    If the oceans warmed that much, how much CO2 would be released into the atmosphere?

    1. According to a chart on solubility for pure water, solubility from 15-20 degrees C falls from .0008 mol/l to .0007 mol per liter, or about 44g/10 tonnes water. That’s at the surface. The higher the pressure, the more CO2 dissolves, but the relationship is not linear. I don’t think there’s a good quick estimate.

  25. Here’s an anecdote of how disingenuous this discussion has become:

    Took the daughter to the local science center Sunday. Of course they have the requisite Bill Nye exhibit on Climate Change and What We Can Do.

    No whiff of a hint anywhere in the displays on trains and windmills and wave plants that there is such a thing as nuclear power.

    BUT

    There is a whole display on biofuels, which got trendy about 15 years ago in response to the whole “renewable fuels” concern.

    The display, of course, presents “biofuels” as “green,” 100% side-stepping the fact that biofuels burn dirtier than almost any other fuel in common use. And that’s CO2 dirty – concentrated evil.

    And this is a *science education center*.

    So, to review:

    0 emission nuclear power = bad
    fuel that emits more CO2 than gasoline = will save the world from CO2

    They fucking LOVE science!

    1. Of course they have the requisite Bill Nye exhibit on Climate Change and What We Can Do

      Let’s do point out here what the leftists and climate alarmists are always so fond of doing. Bill Nye is not a climate scientist, he his only degree is in mechanical engineering. He’s about as much of an authority on climate as the pope, another guy who can’t keep his mouth fucking shut when he doesn’t have a clue.

    2. You really hit the nail on the head there.

      The problem with the climate change mania isn’t *just* that they’re wrong, and that its politicizing science in a way which means that promotes “Consensus as Correct-ness”….

      …but the fact that the obsession with this non-event bullshit, endlessly prognosticating doom, absorbs so much of people’s (esp Student’s) time, money, and focus, that it excludes enormous amounts of ‘real stuff’ that should otherwise be part of people’s science education and areas of interest.

      Its the old “opportunity cost” thing that drives me batty about government waste. It isn’t just that resources are being misdirected… its that the price of all that misdirection results in exponential levels of ‘damage’ by preventing people from doing more productive things that they might have otherwise done

      1. Its the old “opportunity cost” thing that drives me batty about government waste. It isn’t just that resources are being misdirected… its that the price of all that misdirection results in exponential levels of ‘damage’ by preventing people from doing more productive things that they might have otherwise done

        That’s the tactic I use when people try to tell me it’s my “Christian duty” to support the welfare state. Then I quote some Bible verses and generally show them that they don’t understand my faith better than I do, and I usually get accused of being “holier than thou.” You know, because it’s “holier than thou” to know my faith better than a random person does.

  26. It’s only a matter of time before they start predicting sharknados

  27. I’m never at a time when I can comment on a Climate Change thread, and this one is probably dead, but I’ve been wanting to post this for a while.

    The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 4% of 0.01% of the atmosphere. In engineering, generally*, anything less than 10% is considered “noise” and can be ignored.

    Second, consider an alternative Earth that had no human technology but otherwise followed the same geologic history. What would be the temperature of this Earth 2 on the equivalent of today? I would state that it would probably be not too far away from what the temperatures today are. We are in an interglacial period. The last one was 150k years ago and the one before that was about 300k years ago. Are the glaciers going away on Earth 2? Yes. Those islands that are going to be underwater here, are they going to be under water on Earth 2? Yup. Mankind in not warming up the Earth. It’s happened before, it’s gonna happen again. At most the debate is how much Mankind is changing the rate of heating. And that, in my opinion, cannot be extracted from the normal rate of change that has been seen historically.

    … Hobbit

    * Obviously this is not the case when building bridges or other precision engineering.

  28. Used to be that 2 degrees total (meaning 1 more degree) was the “safe limit”. Then it started looking like we might not be hitting that. So now 2 degrees is “calamitous destruction”, and we have to keep it lower than 2 degrees.

    Keep moving the goal posts. Keep shifting the analysis. Bottom line is always the same.

    NEEDZ MOAR GUMMINT POWER!

  29. Needs more Bender robots saying “We’re doomed! DOOOOOOOOOMED!”

  30. The result will be very similar to the last interglacial period, the Eemian, which stretched from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During the Eemian temperatures were only a few tenths of a degree warmer and sea levels were 6 to 9 meters higher than at present.

    So, what you’re saying is that this totally man-made warming episode, which no goodthinker says could be due to natural processes, would have to warm the globe further to just equal the level of warming during a 15,000 year period that was incontrovertibly NOT due to human activity?

    1. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this.

      We have to stop something that’s all our fault, it’s almost as bad as the last time it happened, when it wasn’t our fault!

  31. Well Ron, I’m convinced, fuck this Libertarian shit we’ll need one world government to solve this…

  32. Well, it appears we have little time left on this planet. Let’s enjoy those years, and not make life miserable by doubling or tripling energy costs.

  33. If the sea level is rising on a small pacific island or in Alaska, then it has to be rising in NY and Los Angeles.

    The sea level is the same everywhere on the planet. I live on the coast. Everything has been fine my whole life.

    This is yet another example of the litany of lies baked into this colossal scam.

  34. So, how do they explain the fact that CO2 levels on Earth were somewhere to the tune of 3000PPM as opposed to our current ‘dangerous’ levels of 450PPM a few million years before their ‘Maximum’? Or how a minimum of somewhere to the tune of 150PPM is required for life to exist at all? Or how water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2? Or the fact that they can’t even correctly predict tomorrow, let alone one year or fifty years ahead?

    I think my favorite part is this though:
    “There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.”

    Thus implying that we have practical control over it now? Can they not make up their minds beyond “we need more funding”? I’m not saying mankind as no effect, but these claims of theirs get more hilarious every year. Why not concentrate on known factors like CFC’s that China constantly shits into the atmosphere or water pollution in Latin America? Oh, I guess that doesn’t have the ‘correct’ economic impact of massive wealth transfer that they’re looking for.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.