3)
Sea Level Changes
“The slow emergence of fossil fuel emissions prior to 1950 did not contribute significantly to 19th and early 20th century sea level rise. Identifying a potential human fingerprint on recent sea level rise is confounded by the large magnitude of natural internal variability associated with ocean circulation patterns. There is not yet any convincing evidence of such a fingerprint on sea level rise associated with human-caused global warming.” (Curry, 2018) Rasool and Schneider (1971) had forecast that the increased rate of injection of man-made particulate matter in the atmosphere would return us in the next 50 years into an ice age. In the same paper, they noted though that « Even for an increase in CO2 by a factor of 10, the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5 °K. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15-µm CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, "saturates," and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere». Both assertions were correct, though the ineluctable return to an ice age will not happen on short notice and not for the reasons given. They probably quickly sensed that their career needed a U turn to take some momentum and they converted to the rising tide of climate global warming alarmists. As soon as the late seventies, Schneider in the "The Palm Beach Post" edition of the 8th of January 1979, while working for the National Center for Atmospheric Research at Boulder (Colorado) predicted that «man-caused global warming would thus melt polar ice and raise sea levels by many feet ". Schneider predicted this as a possibility to happen before the end of this century (understand before 1999) and teamed up with Robert Chen of MIT to add «sea-level rise of 15 to 25-foot. The nation's coastline would change markedly». Fifty years after these predictions failed miserably, it is therefore simply amazing to see the same scare tactics used again and again. Prophets of doom keep popping all over the place and litter the greatest universities worldwide and are ready to embark us on an economic Armageddon on baseless fears. Consider this example, of which we just pick-up one amazing sentence, as it cannot be further away from any decent scientific approach «One issue that concerns many scientists is that many of global warming's impacts have unfolded significantly faster than expected. For example, in 2007 the IPCC projected that global average sea levels would rise 0.6 meters (2 feet) by 2100, but in 2013 the prediction was revised to as much as 0.98 meters (3.2 feet), and then in 2016 revised again up to 2 meters (6.6 feet) » (Henderson et al., 2017). This is typical of the way people confuse astrological predictions through a crystal ball and how science should be made. So far, nothing has unfolded at all, the only thing that has happened is that changing the crystal ball they use, those charlatans have increased their «forecasts», but why not increase them to more than 20 meters, or even more to engineer a good epicontinental transgression? This analysis reported by Henderson et al. (2017) is based on a journalist paper (Jones, 2013). In fact the conclusion of Jones’s (2013) paper is just hilarious; she quotes Don Chambers (sea level researcher at the University of Texas), who declares “I always tell people if they live under 3 feet above sea level, they should be worried about the next 100 years”, do you really think that these people will not have anything else to worry about for their next 100 years! Those academics simply live on another planet than the average Joe and do not even know it. The Henderson et al. (2017) paper continue «At the highest level, several studies suggest that the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change are likely to be much lower than the costs of leaving it unchecked. For example, the IPCC estimated that... leaving global warming unchecked might cost 23% to 74% of global per capita GDP by 2100…» What an accurate forecast that we must trust, between 23% to 74% of global per capita GDP, it is an amazing number and a dazing uncertainty, it is not even an astrological forecast any longer now but plain delirium. Then the ranting goes on by attempting to calculate «the social cost of carbon" (SCC), a measure designed to capture the economic damages caused by carbon emission...». It is plain madness, there is no costs but only benefits to making use of carbon-based energies, they will strengthen the growth of plants and vegetables and they will enable us to keep achieving what humankind has made it possible to happen, a better life for everybody, as since the year 1500 human population has increased 14-fold, production 240fold and energy consumption 115-fold. It is because we have access to fossil and nuclear energy that we have increased production 240-fold. Academic staff from Harvard Business School are not just mistaken in their strange reasoning, they have gone straight into the ditch of non-sense. It is also amazing to see how lightly business academics can take numbers which are no better than what a roll of dice would give and claim « global warming's impacts have unfolded significantly faster than expected»!
160
