Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise

I supposed I’m obligated to mention something about the NCA, since I blog so darned much about “climate change”. Let’s look at sea rise

(CNS News) The National Climate Assessment released today by the White House says that as a result of climate change the sea level could rise 8 inches, 11 inches, 4 feet or 6.6 feet by the year 2100, but that a rise of less than 8 inches or more than 6.6 feet is “considered implausible.”

“Scientists are working to narrow the range of sea level rise pro­jections for this century,” said the report.

“Recent projections show that for even the lowest emissions scenarios, thermal expansion of ocean waters and the melting of small mountain glaciers will re­sult in 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100, even without any contribution from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,” it said.

Talk about hedging one’s bets. And, if there is a rise of 11 inches, that would be well within the statistical average for a warm period. In fact, it would be somewhat on the low side. During the 20th Century, the sea rise was completely average for the last 7000 years of the Holocene, after the tremendous sea rise post-glacial age (technically, the Earth is still in a glacial age, as there are glaciers and ice at the poles, but that’s quibbling). And Antarctica is not melting. Most of it is cooling.

But, you know, science is now apparently taking a bunch of numbers and throwing them at the wall. In effect, they really don’t know, so they’re just glancing in their crystal balls and looking to scare people. Here’s The Weather Channel founder John Coleman

This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.

If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.

I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).

Marc Morano

“This report is a misdirection. Obama has entered his 2nd term lame duck status and with climate executive orders he does not need Congress to “do something” about global warming.

“This report is contrary to peer-reviewed studies and observations. By every measure, so called extreme weather is showing no trend or declining trends on 50-100 year timescales. Droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes are not increasing due to man-made global warming.

“Why does the report now call ‘global warming’ a new name, so-called ‘climate disruption’? Simple answer: Due to earth’s failure to warm — no global warming for nearly 18 years – another name was necessary to attempt to gin up fear. Now every storm is offered up as some sort of ‘proof’ of global warming.

Judith Curry

While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW.  Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration.  The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.

The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises (see my recent presentation on this Generating possibility distributions of scenarios for regional climate change).  As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes:  presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.

Ms. Curry has also noted some tweets yesterday by Roger Pielke, Jr, who isn’t exactly a pure skeptic

  • “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″
  •  “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
  • “lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
  • “when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”

The report stops short of delving deep into serious blame of hurricanes on “climate change”, which is smart, considering there have been no landfalling major hurricanes here in the U.S. since October 2005, the second longest period on record going back to the Civil War period. We will break that record if there are no major hurricane landfalls this season. Furthermore, only 1 hurricane has made landfall as a hurricane since 2008, and it could be argued that Isaac was not at actual hurricane strength at landfall. Irene and Sandy were not hurricanes at landfall.

As far as there being more tropical systems, they are somewhat uncertain, but stop short of recognizing that the satellite era, along with better air and sea transportation, has allowed scientists, weathermen, the news media, and the general public see more occurring, something that could not be done previously. For the most part, tropical systems were recognized when they approached shore. One that formed way out in the Atlantic then died was never seen.

Anthony Watts saw an advance copy and pulled this quote, among others

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States., Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively. There has been a sizable upward trend in the number of storms causing large financial and other losses. However, there are societal contributions to this trend, such as increases in population and wealth.

So, yes, Obama’s politicized scary story NCA blames more winter storms on warming.

And then Obama flew a bunch of meteorologists to the White House on fossil fueled flights to make a political statement, then took a fossil fueled trip across the country to fundraisers. Because fossil fuels are evil.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise”

  1. Three-piece e-cigarette cartridges last longer than other similar products on the market.
    The company is also working on obtaining the new e – Go-T colors, including blue and red.
    Where this privilege is challenged is when the harmful effects produced by smoking cigarettes exceed
    damaging the individual and transform in to a public health issue.

  2. john says:

    Teach the US NAvy believes in AGW. Are they part of this hoax or just stupid stooges?
    Teach in the past cold and snowy weather was blamed on malevolent Gods. Science is always increasing our knowledge, don’t be held to living in the ignorant past.

  3. john says:

    Teach the USA has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to 2004 levels
    Living a carbon neutral life is not practical for most people. But we can continue to reduce our carbon footprint, and we will.
    So don’t be all SADZ

  4. jl says:

    Yes, John, and we’ve reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by and large through the free market place, not government intervention. And to answer your never-ending questions about the Navy, yes, they are stupid stooges if “they” believe in this hoax. By the way, have you quizzed all the servicemen and women about this subject to allow yourself to say “they”? I would love to see your data.

  5. Trish Mac says:

    WTF of John’s obsession with the Navy?
    It occurs to me that the Navy is being FORCED to use green energy to their detriment and a burden on our nation.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-pentagon-paid-150-per-gallon-for-green-jet-fuel/

    From the article:

    Reuters reported in 2012 that the Air Force had purchased 11,000 of alcohol-based jet fuel for $59 per gallon from a Colorado-based biofuel company.

    That company, Gevo Inc., was backed financially by high-dollar Democratic donor Vinod Khosla, who has invested in a number of companies that have received federal support from the Obama administration.

    Quit with the trite old “Navy believes” comments John. We know that most govt enitities and especially the Pentagon cater to and kowtow to those who lord over them.

  6. WTF of John’s obsession with the Navy?

    He thinks that by constantly bringing it up he will somehow change our minds, because we support our military. Guitar Carver has beaten the hell out of John numerous times on this.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9489 access attempts in the last 7 days.