Rising sea levels over the past 120 years are a result of man-made climate change and NOT variations in the Earth's orbit, study shows

This is a strange report.  The link to the journal article does not work and the alleged author does not even list the article in his "In press" publications.  Was it published and then withdrawn?  Probably. Impossible to evaluate anyway

Rising sea levels over the past 120 years are a result of man-made climate change and not variations in the Earth's orbit, a study has found.

Over the last 66 million years, the Earth has both had ice ages and ice-free conditions — both caused by variations in Earth's orbital properties.

However, sea-level rise has accelerated in recent decades, threatening to flood many populated coastal cities, communities and low-lying land by the century's end.

This consequence of greenhouse gas emissions also poses a grave threat to many ecosystems and could generate costly damage to infrastructure.

'Our team showed that the Earth's history of glaciation was more complex than previously thought.' said paper author Kenneth Miller of Rutgers University.

'Although carbon dioxide levels had an important influence on ice-free periods, minor variations in the Earth's orbit were the dominant factor in terms of ice volume and sea-level changes — until modern times.'

In their study, the researchers reconstructed the history of sea level changes and glaciations since the age of the dinosaurs ended, around 66 million years ago.

They compared estimates of the global average sea level — based on deep-sea geochemistry data — with continental margin records.

Continental margins, which include the relatively shallow ocean waters over a continental shelf, can extend out hundreds of miles from the coast.

The team discovered that periods of nearly ice-free conditions — such as was found 17–13 million years ago — occurred when atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide was not much higher than it is today.

Glacial periods were also found to have occurred at times previously thought to have been ice-free, including from 48–34 million years ago.

'Atmospheric carbon dioxide had an important influence on ice-free periods on Earth,' said Professor Miller.

'Ice volume and sea-level changes prior to human influences were linked primarily to minor variations in the Earth's orbit and distance from the sun,' he added.

The largest sea-level decline took place during the last glacial period, around 20,000 years ago, when the water level dropped by about 400 feet (around 122 metres).

The team have concluded that sea-level changes were at a standstill until around 1900, but began rising as human activities began influencing the climate.

The full findings of the study were published in the journal Science Advances.

SOURCE 




People not concerned about climate change only wear a mask 30 percent of the time in public during the coronavirus pandemic, survey reveals

People who doubt one official story tend to doubt others

A survey finds your stance on climate change determines your decision to wear a mask during the coronavirus pandemic.

Approximately 54 percent of individuals who are climate-concerned 'always' wear masks in public, while only 30 percent of those who responded 'not too concerned' or 'not concerned at all' strap on the gear.

The trend was also observed when following advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – those who are troubled by human causing changes in the environment following social distancing and cleaning practices.

In the unconcerned group, 65 percent identified as conservative and 36 percent are deemed baby boomers.

The US has been hit by the coronavirus harder than any other nation in the world. As of Friday, there are more than 1.4 million cases and over 84,000 reported deaths.

The CDC has rolled out guidelines to the public with the hope of limiting the spread of the outbreak, which includes wearing a mask, social distancing and cleaning homes.

The Morning Consult, a technology firm, set out to see how a person's view on one public health crisis affects their behavior toward another.

The team conducted an online survey with 2,200 Americans from April 14 through 16, which asked participants about their views on climate change and precautions they adhere to during the coronavirus pandemic.

The 'climate-concerned' group included those who agree the changes to the environment are caused by human activity and worry about the future of our planet.

The other group, deemed 'climate-unconcerned' were individuals who said they were either 'not too concerned' or 'not concerned at all' about climate change.

Social distancing was found to be practiced by both groups - 86 percent of the climate-concerned and 72 percent of the climate-unconcerned.

Experts who analyzed the findings suggest that 'the discrepancy can be traced either to science skepticism or to personal autonomy concerns, the combination of which has fueled climate change dismissal and denial for decades, Morning Consult shared.

Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor in communication studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said that this also stems from a general skepticism of authority and a personal concern, rather than what is better for the masses.

'Everything that science asks us to do is really sacrificing personal convenience for community convenience and well-being,' Bloomfield said. 'And for a lot of people, the coronavirus is invisible, just like climate change is invisible.'

'A lot of people don't know people who have been directly affected, and in the case of climate change, a lot of the more severe effects are still years away.

However, Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, said that in the United States, the most important predictor of a person's attitude toward climate change is his or her political ideology.

'Conservative Republicans are much more likely to be climate skeptics, and liberal Democrats are much more likely to be seriously concerned about climate change,' he said.

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are known offenders of dismissing the CDC recommendations.

On Thursday, Trump visited a medical supply company factor in Pennsylvania, but took the tour without a mask, marking the second time he wasn't pictured with a facial covering as he traveled outside of the White House to visit companies helping the battle against the coronavirus.

And Friday, the president made mask-wearing an option for officials at the White House's Rose Garden event.

Although Pence has not been seen wearing the face cover, the vice president did say he should have worn one when visiting the Mayo Clinic in April.

SOURCE 




Buffet’s billion dollar subsidy farm

Warren Buffet just got the go ahead to spend over one billion dollars to construct America’s largest ever solar installation in Nevada’s Mojave desert.

An energy corporation owned by America’s third richest man is planning to rake in the solar subsidies.

You may recall that Buffet has been candid with his investors as to why he invests in so-called “renewables.” Here’s what he infamously said about wind turbines: “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Dr. Jay Lehr outlines “the futility of this mammoth project that will blight this great desert forever, while pulling the curtain down on the futility of attempting to obtain dependable power from the sun unless it is on your roof top. We have been lying to ourselves about this potential for over three decades.”  Read his full commentary here at CFACT.org.

Green ideologues resort to magical thinking when it comes time to rationalize their “renewable” energy schemes. Corporate investors are certainly not going to correct them.

Dr. Lehr further explains:

Thinking that some special new battery is going to maintain as much power as the absent sun, has been and will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future. The mandatory back up fossil fuel must stand by running near full out and emitting carbon dioxide and producing no electricity until the sun cannot fill the bill and it must step in. The excess cost for the excess backup power will show up in the electric bills of the residents of Las Vegas as sure as night shall follow day.

So there we have it. Investors collect the subsidies, while rate and taxpayers get fleeced. CO2 emissions don’t budge (if that’s your thing) while vast natural lands are turned into solar wastelands.

Green Robin Hoods steal from the poor and the planet to give to the rich.

SOURCE 




A billion dollar solar boondoggle in Vegas

On May 12 the Interior Department gave approval for the largest solar power project in the U.S. to be built by Warren Buffett’s NV Energy company on 7100 acres of Federal lands in the Mohave Desert. At a cost of one billion dollars, it pales into insignificance on the days we read of the trillions of dollars being spent battling the corona virus economic destruction. But a boondoggle by any other name remains a boondoggle.

The plan for this three year project is very specific and quite ambitious and will never fulfill even close to its targets of 690 megawatts that are said will power 260,000 homes, provide 900 jobs, with a massive battery backup to replace the solar system at night, and emit no carbon dioxide. Had the government seen Michael Moore’s brilliant new movie Planet For The Humans before approving the project they may not have approved it. The film illustrates on the ground at various sites, how and why every major solar project in the country has failed miserably.

In just a few sentences we can explain the futility of this mammoth project that will blight this great desert forever, while pulling the curtain down on the futility of attempting to obtain dependable power from the sun unless it is on your roof top. We have been lying to ourselves about this potential for over three decades.

In a new book light-heartedly titled The Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change one discovers that the renewable energy debate can be summed up with a simple Rule of Thumb which states “in every communities electric grid, an excess amount of fossil fuel or nuclear power must be available at the ready to go on line in seconds, that is equal to the potential output of all intermittent solar energy considered a portion of the grids electric capacity”. No batteries exist on earth that could take up the load when the sun is not shining. If they could it would likely only be for a single night for how would then recharge them. This is a fairy tale of absurdity being sold to Las Vegas just as the snake oil salesmen of the old west plied their trade.

When you digest this simple rule, you will wonder that the pro/con arguments over solar energy have gone on for so long without facing the only reality that can ever allow solar energy to be an important part of our energy portfolio. *It must have 100% back up with fossil fuel or nuclear power to insure that the communities electric grid can not let them down*. Las Vegas of all places can not afford a blackout. Thinking that some special new battery is going to maintain as much power as the absent sun, has been and will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future. The mandatory back up fossil fuel must stand by running near full out and emitting carbon dioxide and producing no electricity until the sun can not fill the bill and it must step in. The excess cost for the excess backup power will show up in the electric bills of the residents of Las Vegas as sure as night shall follow day.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************