There are few environmental issues with more unsupported claims than the effects of global warming on sea-level rise.
And such incorrect information is particularly egregious here in the Pacific Northwest.
One of the worst offenders is the Seattle Times, which published a problematic storythis week. A story that was internally inconsistent, full of obvious errors, and making claims that are hyperbolic at best.
Observed Sea Level Changes in the Pacific Northwest
NOAA has an excellent site that provides access to sea-level observations. Below is a map from their website, which shows that sea-level trends are not uniform over the region, with SEVERAL LOCATIONS SHOWING SEA LEVEL DROPPING, NOT RISING. (blue arrows indicate sea level is falling)
I repeat dropping. And for the remainder of the region, many of the sea level increases are very modest (the size of the arrows are the same for a wide range of trends).
Why are so many areas showing sea levels falling?
Because the land is rising, for two geological reasons. One is called isostatic rebound; the land had been pushed down by the last glaciation and is still rebounding, causing sea level to drop. And the movement of the San de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate is causing portions the Pacific Northwest to rise (see USFS figure below), resulting in sea level either falling or rising to a lesser extent.
March 3, 2022 11:54 pm
You never fail to provide objective evidence based on authentic science in every discussion. Thanks!
NOAA’s 2013 list, excluding stations with less than 60 years of data
From this thread:
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A Ukrainian climate scientist blames Western purchases of Russian fossil fuel for the might of their military onslaught, but she fails to ask why the West became so dependent on Russia.
Unite against climate change – Ukraine scientist
By Victoria Gill
Science correspondent, BBC News
A leading Ukrainian scientist says war is “closing the window of opportunity” for the world to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
Dr Svitlana Krakovska, who is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), spoke to me on Zoom from her apartment in Kyiv.
“It’s amazing how the people of Ukraine united against one enemy,” she said.
“If we all unite against climate change, we can survive as a civilisation.”
She stressed that fossil fuels, and Europe’s reliance on exported oil and gas from Russia, were “funding the war”.
“The money that’s invested in fossil fuels, they’re using against us,” she said. “Against freedom. Against humanity.”
…Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60592587
I cannot express how much I admire the courage of people including Dr Svitlana Krakovska, who have stayed in the Ukraine, to defend their homes from Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s brutal incursion into their country,.
But blaming our dependence on fossil fuel for the might of Russia’s military is only half the story. The reason Europe especially became so dependent on Russian fossil fuel specifically, is green politicians like Joe Biden, Angela Merkel and Boris Johnson have done and are doing everything in their power to wreck Western extractive industries, with fracking and exploration bans, punitive taxes, and onerous environmental processes for drilling new wells and mines.
How did green politicians in the West manage to convince so many voters to support their anti-fossil fuel extraction jihad?
Dr Svitlana Krakovska, in my opinion if you want to know who is really to blame for the might of Russia’s armies, try looking in the mirror. The climate alarmism promoted by yourself and your colleagues gave green politicians like Biden, Merkel and BoJo the voter support, scientific cover and political leverage they needed to wreck Western oil and gas extraction, forcing desperate Western consumers to turn to hostile fossil fuel providers like Russia.
metmike: How/why do people keep believing in this stuff?
Yeah, I know because they've had their intelligence stolen with 2+ decades of climate propaganda.
The oceans are increasing at just over an inch/decade. The planet is greening up and the beneficial gas and building block for all of life, CO2 is the biggest gift humans have ever bestowed on the planet during this climate optimum.
Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!
11 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
But we are actually killing the planet in numerous other realms.
Therealenvironmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources(metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist): April 2019
Eric Worrall said:
“The reason Europe especially became so dependent on Russian fossil fuel specifically, is green politicians like Joe Biden, Angela Merkel and Boris Johnson have done and are doing everything in their power to wreck Western extractive industries, with fracking and exploration bans, punitive taxes, and onerous environmental processes for drilling new wells and mines.”
Has the US petroleum extractive industry actually been wrecked by Joe Biden? In defense of Biden being singled out as regards petroleum, I wrote this in another thread yesterday:
I’m quite confused about why Biden’s “war on oil” is being blamed for Russia attacking Ukraine.
1. Besides the fact that there are many factors outside of the POTUS’ influence that determine US oil production, the US oil production averaged over the last 4 weeks is at 11.6 mbpd, which is a whopping 1.2 mbpd higher vs just after Biden came into office. It averaged only 10.375 mbpd for the 4 weeks ending 2/26/21. What am I missing?
2. Now I’ll look at annual CO production including forecasts to 2023:
Yes, the US hit a record high during Trump admin in 2019 at 12.3 mbpd. However, due to (I assume) mainly COVID, it fell 1 mbpd to 11.3 in 2020. In 2021, things leveled off vs 2020 with a very small drop of 0.1 to 11.2. 2022 is forecasted to rise back 0.8 to 12.0 and then up to a new record high of 12.6 in 2023, during Biden.
So, what am I missing? If one is going to attack Biden based on US crude production, how can they do it fairly based on all of this objective data?
And to reiterate, US crude production is projected to increase 800K in 2022 and then to a new record high in 2023. So, how can Trump supporters objectively criticize Biden as regards the US petroleum situation as a contributing factor for the Russian attack on Ukraine?
Great point Larry!
The Biden administration definitely has a war on fossil fuels POLITICAL POSITION (to save the planet from the climate crisis/Climate Accord objective) but their actions, as shown by your data suggest they know better than to cut off the life blood of our economy, very dense(used to be cheap) abundant and reliable fossil fuels.