Although in this case it’s “The oceans are rising! The oceans are rising!” – Climate change whackos
Chris Ciaccia of Fox News reports that, “Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea levels and might cause humanity to ‘give up … New York!’”
There’s one of our favorite “scientific” words again…, “might.”
“Might” is right there with “may,” “could,” etc.
“The research notes that if temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius, ocean levels will rise 8 feet.”
Note: 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every 1 degree in Celsius. So, a 2 degree rise in Celsius would be a 3.6 degree rise Fahrenheit.
“If the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are not met, the Antarctic ice sheet will melt, resulting in global sea levels rising to the point where humanity will have to ‘give up … New York,’ according to a new study.”
Ahhh…, the old Paris Climate Agreement.
The agreement that proposed to hold the US to higher standards than everyone else, while having the US pay dearly, monetarily and economically speaking, while the rest of the world took its time sacrificing anything in the name of saving the environment.
So, in actuality, it isn’t up to the United States to insure the Paris Climate Agreement environmental goals are met, it’s up to the major pollution violators, like China, India, Russia and Japan.
I’m assuming this article and this study are being highlighted and touted in the countries I mentioned above, right?
I would recommend not holding your breath while waiting for any of these countries to take any environmentally responsible actions if it costs them one extra dollar to do so.
I really hate to throw my Indian friends under the bus here, but even they would have to admit that India definitely has issues with clean air, clean water, and pollution in general.
“The research, published in ‘Nature,’ [‘Nature’ is a British weekly scientific journal founded and based in London, England. It features peer-reviewed research from a variety of academic disciplines, mainly in science, technology, and the natural sciences], notes that if temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius, ocean levels will rise 2.5 meters (8 feet), the temperature limit set by the Paris agreement. Should temperatures rise 4 or 6 degrees Celsius, sea levels would eventually rise 6.5 meters (21 feet) and nearly 12 meters (39 feet), respectively.”
‘“Antarctica holds more than half of Earth’s fresh water, frozen in a vast ice-sheet which is nearly 5 kilometers thick,’ study co-author Ricarda Winkelmann said in a statement. ‘As the surrounding ocean water and atmosphere warm due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, the white cap on the South Pole loses mass and eventually becomes unstable.’”
“Winkelmann continued: ‘Because of its sheer magnitude, Antarctica’s potential for sea-level contribution is enormous: We find that already at 2 degrees of warming, melting and the accelerated ice flow into the ocean will, eventually, entail 2.5 meters of global sea level rise just from Antarctica alone. At 4 degrees, it will be 6.5 meters and at 6 degrees almost 12 meters if these temperature levels would be sustained long enough.’”
Okay Professor, let ME throw some numbers at YOU.
In the Antarctic (the South Pole) the warmest month of the year is January, with an average temperature of -14 degrees Fahrenheit.
The coldest month of the year in the Antarctic, is September, with an average temperature of -70 degrees Fahrenheit.
So even if the average temperature rises 40 degrees, we would still be well below freezing, which is +32 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, what would a rise of 4, 8, or 10 degrees Fahrenheit cause?
I mean, freezing is freezing, isn’t it?
Something is just as frozen at -70 as it is at -30, isn’t it?
Do you really have to be a “scientist.” An “expert,” or a “professor,” to figure this stuff out?
Additionally, the oceans make up 71% of the surface of our planet.
If you’ve ever taken a trip and flown across the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean, you have gotten a feel for ow immense they really are.
Now, the Antarctic makes up only 2.7% of our planet’s surface.
It is utterly absurd to suggest, or insinuate, that an area so small in relation to an area so big could have such a huge effect on the larger area.
Like I said before, “Do you really have to be a “scientist.” An “expert,” or a “professor,” to figure this stuff out?”
The answer is “no.”
A little common sense will serve you well every time.
“The landmark Paris Climate Agreement, which was agreed to in 2015 under the Obama administration [An administration which was always eager to enter into agreements that put appearances over reality], has as its long-term goal limiting the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Nearly 200 nations signed the landmark agreement, including China.”
Signing something in which you have no responsibility, only benefits, is not a hard thing to do, nor is it something which is particularly noteworthy.
“In early November 2019, the Trump administration began its formal withdrawal from the agreement.”
And rightly so.
Let’s take a look at what former President Obama agreed to under the wonderful Paris Climate Agreement.
Per Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, “The poorly negotiated Paris climate accord imposed unfair, unworkable and unrealistic targets on the United States for reducing carbon emissions.”
Is that the definition of a “negotiation” to President Obama and his friends…, bending over and grabbing your ankles?
“As the climate deal punished America’s energy producers with expensive and burdensome regulations, it gave other countries U.S. taxpayer-funded subsidies and generous timelines.”
“Countries like China got a free pass to pollute for over a decade. With abundant low-cost coal, China and India would put our manufacturers at a huge competitive disadvantage. Economic costs would be severe.”
“According to the National Economic Research Associates, if we met all of our commitments as part of the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. We don’t need to cripple our economy to protect our environment.”
“America’s emissions actually continue to decline, and we are the world’s driver of innovative solutions. Since 2005, the United States has reduced its combustion-related carbon dioxide emissions more than any other nation in the world. Global emissions have moved in the opposite direction.”
It sounds like a typical “putting America and Americans last” Obama deal.
But all of that being said…, President Trump will just be accused of being an evil “climate denier” for getting the US out of that agreement, regardless of how detrimental and unfair it was towards the United States.
I guess President Trump didn’t get the memo that the US is supposed to be everyone else’s bitch.
Anyway…, getting back to the issue of the Antarctic melting…
“The period of melting is likely to last for many years, but it’s likely the changes will be permanent, the researchers added.”
Another typically “scientific” word these days.
You’ve heard of the term, “the new math,” right?
Well, what we are dealing with now is “the new science.”
It’s “science” with a twist of propaganda.
‘“Antarctica is basically our ultimate heritage from an earlier time in Earth’s history,’ study co-author Anders Levermann added. ‘It’s been around for roughly 34 million years. Now our simulations show that once it’s melted, it does not regrow to its initial state even if temperatures eventually sank again. Indeed, temperatures would have to go back to pre-industrial levels to allow its full recovery – a highly unlikely scenario. In other words: What we lose of Antarctica now, is lost forever.’”
Anders Levermann is a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Columbia University. He is a Professor of the Dynamics of the Climate System at Institute for Physics and Astrophysics of the Potsdam University, Germany.
“In an interview with the Guardian, Levermann was even direr, noting ‘we will be renowned in future as the people who flooded New York City.’”
“Earlier this week, a separate study said sea levels could rise 15 inches by 2100 because of melting from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current pace.”
There’s that word again, “could.”
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
“The research shows the stark impact humanity is having on the planet, even if the most extreme impacts will not be seen for years to come, Winkelmann continued.”
‘“In the end, it is our burning of coal and oil that determines ongoing and future greenhouse-gas emissions and therefore, if and when critical temperature thresholds in Antarctica are crossed. And even if the ice loss happens on long time scales, the respective carbon dioxide levels can already be reached in the near future. We decide now whether we manage to halt the warming. If we give up the Paris Agreement, we give up Hamburg, Tokyo and New York.’”
“A separate study published in February suggested that if global temperatures were to rise 0.5 degrees Celsius over the next 50 years, approximately half of the world’s species would become locally extinct. If temperatures were to rise 2.9 degrees Celsius, 95 percent of the species would become locally extinct.”
“In March, another study suggested that almost half of the world’s sandy beaches could be gone by 2100 if climate change continues.”
“In August, researchers found that 28 trillion tons of ice, primarily from the Arctic sea, Antarctic ice shelves and mountain glaciers, had been lost over the past 23 years, ‘a direct consequence of climate warming.’”
So, why aren’t coastal cities being flooded already?
“In May 2019, a separate study suggested climate change could raise sea levels by as much as 7 feet by 2100.”
Wow…, it’s just study after study of “could” and “might.”
Back in the day, I think these would have been called theories…, but with the “new science,” theories along the preferred narrative are considered proven facts.
“Skeptics have largely dismissed fears over man’s impact on global warming, saying climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. They also claim the dangers of a warming planet are being wildly exaggerated and question the impact that fossil fuels have had on climate change.”
Call me a “skeptic” then.
I believe you can question “science” without being a “science denier.”
“Science” should be questioned…, that’s a part of the process, unless you’re talking about “the new science.”
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.
We’re all entitled to our opinions. I value yours and your feedback as well.
I’d love to hear from you!
Thank you, MrEricksonRules.