An article in the UK Register describes many fascinating things about the sea level rise studies. Since the time of Al Gore showing his movies to the natives the "eminent" destruction keeps moving off into the unforeseeable future.
A while back I wrote "My Island Home is Sinking Into the Sea" which described the destruction of various island homes by "Global Warming."
Sadly this latest UK Register article (and the associated studies) points to all this "sinking into the sea" as complete and utter nonsense.
Will the water levels rise - apparently yes by 3000 or so - a mere 988 years from now - when "all the ice melts."
Of course that presumes man is still around and the planet has not been destroyed by an asteroid.
For many years now, since I wrote "Global Warming Science" in 2005 and "Global Dimming" in 2006 I have been highly critical of the quote-unquote science of "Global Warming" in general.
In the case of "Global Dimming" I pointed out how the termination of all US high-altitude commercial flights in September of 2001 had a dramatic and unforeseen effect on the climate.
Completely unforeseen and unpredicted by the "climate science" literati.
Sadly there are far more problems with this kind of "science" than this and these issues are only the tip of the iceberg.
Yet politicians rely on and make changes to governmental functions based on this "science" which turns out to be simply wrong.
Hence the public policy based on it is also wrong.
The present Administration in the US set out to "save the planet" but, in fact, the planet apparently does not need saving.
Yet still the public policy acts as if it does.
And this is wrong.
This wrong is further compounded because as a nation we are going into further debt to support bad science - both in terms of funding and in terms of implemented public policy around the wrong results.
As I have written before today's generation cannot easily distinguish between fact and fantasy - particularly in science.
Today "policy" and "common knowledge" set the direction of the research and thinking.
Once we know what's wrong, i.e., man in destroying the planet, we simply work to show how this is true.
Here is a good example: Shrinking Fish. A study in Nature describes how global warming will shrink fish.
Its filled with projections on how oxygen will diminish in the seas and fish will shrink as a result.
Is this kind of study really "science" or merely pointless "speculation?"
The key point for all this can be found several paragraphs down from the top where the researchers say "Assuming that other resources for growth are constant, the anabolic term can be expressed as a function of oxygen supply."
The rest of the paper goes on to describe how limited oxygen will dramatically shrink the size of fish.
But, note that they assume that "other resources for growth are constant" (my underline above).
What are other resources for growth besides oxygen?
- Temperature of the environment.
- Solar output (for the growth of marine plankton which are at the bottom of the food chain).
- Natural climate functions, e.g., volcanism.
- Etc. Etc. Etc.
All are complete unknowns.
So this "Nature" article is simple, raw speculation.
So how is the original article different than, for example, Googling "Katy Perry sex?"
The results are equally rampant with speculation, what if, faux facts, nonsense, silly videos, wrong information and content free web posts.
I have no idea what or if Katy Perry even has a sex life and I don't care about it if she does. Its meaningless speculation that serves only to promote the publications which print stuff like this. But Google reveals there are some 75,000,000 (seventy five million) hits on this subject.
Googling "Global warming sea level rise" yields only some 2,290,000 (two million two hundred ninety thousand) results.
Same results: all speculation.
We don't know any more about Katy Perry's sex life than we do what's happening with our sea level changes in the next 100 years.
Sadly though, in the case of Katy Perry, its at least possible to have some actual facts and knowledge, i.e., apparently she has an ex-husband who could write a sourced "tell-all" book.
Not so with global sea level rising - there is no actual data other than what the climate actually does when it does it in the future.
I guess the natives "My Island Home is Sinking Into the Sea" will find more potential facts Googling about "Katy Perry sex" than watching Al Gore's video.