Manhattan is not underwater, Florida and its Keys look the same, the Maldives have changed (they added more oceanside hotels), and your paltry emissions aren’t going to change that. The Earth is far more complex than the political scientists milking you on its behalf.
Related: Read This, and You’ll Know More About “Sea Level” than 99% of Climate Cult Alarmists.
But the fear emoted by the idea of an oncoming unstoppable ocean is intense. The left sells it like an inexorable tidal wave of water. A diluvian catastrophe of biblical proportions. One they can stop with your continued “donations.” None of which is true. It’s not coming, and they couldn’t stop it if it were.
And it’s not coming.
And not just because sea level rise has been very post-ice age predictable. Part of that complex system the modelers can’t see or ignore to promulgate cataclysmic headlines has been addressing changes throughout Earth’s history and most definitely during these few and rare eras during which human habitation and expansion have been possible.
The arctic sea ice can melt all it wants, and that won’t change a thing. Realizing this has become more common knowledge, the climate cult has settled its sea level science on ice and snow on land – If that melts, we’ll see six feet of sea level rise. And if it all melted? Maybe. Many of the places we live were once underwater. For thousands of years, perhaps millions. And it wasn’t dinosaur farts, and it’s not you today, but I digress.
Greenland is the poster child for landbound snow and ice-melt doom. But Greenland was much warmer 1000 years ago, and there was no catastrophic sea level rise (oops).
Northern Greenland was covered with wildlife roaming a vast arboreal forest two million years ago. Again, warmer, and you weren’t cooking with natural gas, and why wasn’t that coastline underwater?
Good question.
Imaginary Tipping Points.
Dave Burton, writing at Climate Alarmism, explains some of the natural changes that are part and parcel of Earth’s complexity.
[I]n a warming climate, there are factors which both increase and decrease sea-level trends.
On one hand, ice which is near 0°C can melt, and if it was grounded (rather than floating) that would raise sea-level. Also, thermal expansion at the ocean’s surface can increase sea-level rise locally, though it doesn’t affect sea-level elsewhere. Those are things which raise sea-level.
On the other hand, warmer temperatures increase snowfall accumulation on glaciers and ice sheets, sequestering water, and thereby lowering sea-level, in two ways:
● Warmer air carries more moisture, increasing snowfall on glaciers & ice sheets. For each 1°C of warming the moisture-carrying capacity of the air increases by about 7%. That’s why the heaviest blizzards occur when temperatures are not far below freezing.
● Reduced sea-ice coverage increases Lake/Ocean-Effect Snowfall (LOES) downwind, some of which accumulates on glaciers & ice sheets.
The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel.
Other factors include subsidence or vertical land motion, which are the primary drivers of sea level change along the Eastern Seaboard (sorry, it’s not oil or gas heat, Vermont). And why does Betio Island, part of the Tarawa Atoll, have more land mass than it had in 1943? Because there are more variables on Earth (or in the atmosphere) that the computer models can or try to account for, understand, or explain.
They understand grants and continued funding but not much else.
They can’t predict sh!t about the climate, so how could they possibly predict the impacts of their alleged prescription? They can’t. They don’t ever try because, as you already know (‘Grok Readers), those schemes have nothing to do with the weather, the climate, warming, or sea level.
It is about control, including message control, and they are (sadly) getting better at both.
