What The BBC Don’t Want You To Know About Miami’s Rising Seas
By Paul Homewood
h/t Jonathan Scott
Another day, another BBC propaganda piece!
Just down the coast from Donald Trump’s weekend retreat, the residents and businesses of south Florida are experiencing regular episodes of water in the streets. In the battle against rising seas, the region – which has more to lose than almost anywhere else in the world – is becoming ground zero.
The first time my father’s basement flooded, it was shortly after he moved in. The building was an ocean-front high-rise in a small city north of Miami called Sunny Isles Beach. The marble lobby had a waterfall that never stopped running; crisp-shirted valets parked your car for you. For the residents who lived in the more lavish flats, these cars were often BMWs and Mercedes. But no matter their value, the cars all wound up in the same place: the basement.
When I called, I’d ask my dad how the building was doing. “The basement flooded again a couple weeks ago,” he’d sometimes say. Or: “It’s getting worse.” It’s not only his building: he’s also driven through a foot of water on a main road a couple of towns over and is used to tiptoeing around pools in the local supermarket’s car park.
Ask nearly anyone in the Miami area about flooding and they’ll have an anecdote to share. Many will also tell you that it’s happening more and more frequently. The data backs them up.
It’s easy to think that the only communities suffering from sea level rise are far-flung and remote. And while places like the Solomon Islands and Kiribati are indeed facing particularly dramatic challenges, they aren’t the only ones being forced to grapple with the issue. Sea levels are rising around the world, and in the US, south Florida is ground zero – as much for the adaptation strategies it is attempting as for the risk that it bears.
One reason is that water levels here are rising especially quickly. The most frequently-used range of estimates puts the likely range between 15-25cm (6-10in) above 1992 levels by 2030, and 79-155cm (31-61in) by 2100. With tides higher than they have been in decades – and far higher than when this swampy, tropical corner of the US began to be drained and built on a century ago – many of south Florida’s drainage systems and seawalls are no longer enough. That means not only more flooding, but challenges for the infrastructure that residents depend on every day, from septic tanks to wells. “The consequences of sea level rise are going to occur way before the high tide reaches your doorstep,” says William Sweet, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Sea level rise is global. But due to a variety of factors – including, for this part of the Atlantic coast, a likely weakening of the Gulf Stream, itself potentially a result of the melting of Greenland’s ice caps – south Floridians are feeling the effects more than many others. While there has been a mean rise of a little more than 3mm per year worldwide since the 1990s, in the last decade, the NOAA Virginia Key tide gauge just south of Miami Beach has measured a 9mm rise annually.
That may not sound like much. But as an average, it doesn’t tell the whole story of what residents see – including more extreme events like king tides (extremely high tides), which have been getting dramatically higher. What’s more, when you’re talking about places like Miami Beach – where, as chief resiliency officer Susanne Torriente jokes, the elevation ranges between “flat and flatter” – every millimetre counts. Most of Miami Beach’s built environment sits at an elevation of 60-120cm (2-6ft). And across the region, underground infrastructure – like aquifers or septic tanks – lies even closer to the water table……
Not only are sea levels rising, but the pace seems to be accelerating. That’s been noted before – but what it means for south Florida was only recently brought home in a University of Miami study. “After 2006, sea level rose faster than before – and much faster than the global rate,” says the lead author Shimon Wdowinski, who is now with Miami’s Florida International University. From 3mm per year from 1998 to 2005, the rise off Miami Beach tripled to that 9mm rate from 2006….
One graph compiled in 2015 by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, a non-partisan initiative that collates expertise and coordinates efforts across Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties, is especially revealing (see below). At the bottom is a dotted green line, which rises slowly. Before you get optimistic, the footnote is firm: “This scenario would require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in order to be plausible and does not reflect current emissions trends.” More probable is the range in the middle, shaded blue, which shows that a 6-10in (15-25cm) rise above 1992 levels is likely by 2030. At the top, the orange line is more severe still, going off the chart – to 81 inches (206cm) – by the end of the century.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
The article continues to ramble on in similar vein.
But where are the real facts , and why has the BBC omitted them?
The BBC mentions the tide gauge at Virginia Key, just outside Miami.
We can see that the long term rate of sea level rise has been 2.92mm/yr, and that the rate of rise has been accelerating in recent decades:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8723214
However, the data at Virginia only goes back to 1931. There is a much longer record going back to 1897 at Fernandina Beach, just up the Florida coast, which tells a completely different story:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8720030
The overall rate of rise is a much less scary 2.15mm/yr, and more significantly the rate of rise now is no higher than it was in the first half of the 20thC, putting paid to the exponential rise in sea level quoted in the BBC report.
If we focus on the most recent 50-yr trends, we see that Virginia is running at 3.52mm/yr, but Fernandina is lower at 2.77mm. Clearly this difference has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, and everything to do with local factors, most likely caused by water extraction.
And the story does not end there. Virtually the whole of the US East Coast is subsiding because of long term geological processes. The main one is the collapse of the forebulge of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Retreat of the ice sheet since the end of the ice age means that land under it is still springing back up. However, as that happens, land on the periphery, such as the Atlantic coast, is tilting downwards.
The rate of subsidence is highest further north, but on the Florida coast it is in the order of 0.4mm/yr.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068015
What this means is that whereas the current relative rate of sea level rise (RSL) at Fernandina is 2.77mm/yr, subsidence accounts for about 0.4mm of this. Therefore the absolute sea level rise (ASL) is 2.37mm.
At Virginia Key, the combination of geological and local subsidence account for approximately 1.1mm/yr, nearly a third of the reported rise.
There is no evidence at all that Florida will see 81 inches of sea level rise by 2100, as hysterically reported. Based on current trends, a figure of 8 inches is more likely.
Miami has managed perfectly well with that amount of sea level rise in the past century, and I am sure they will continue to do so.
But that does not suit the BBC’s narrative, does it?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This website Is unintentionally acting as a broadcaster for the Climate Crisis fruitcases by laying out in the greatest detail their arguments before rebutting them.
Sadly hardly anyone is still reading by this stage and definitely few journalists who should be the target for debunking such spurious articles..
How do you know that?
Mark Winthrop
99% of journalists would rather stick needles in their eyes than visit a site which might perhaps make them think about “settled science”.
The other 1% woulď rather stick needles in their eyes than admit having read anything on here.
There is a reason why public confidence in journalism is in steep decline.
And not just on Glowbull Warming issues.
Look at reporting on ChiCom-19.
Paul, small typo. The article says 61″ by 2100, not 81″. No need to exaggerate. It is daft enough as it stands…
There’s three scenarios Ken – 61 is the middle and 81 the top
Apologies, Paul!!! I only read the text, and did not look at the graph. I tend to ignore those exponential plots, as they are usually based on extrapolating from very dubious models. Nevertheless, happy to admit I was wrong!
There is the little matter of “isostatic rebound”. The tremendous weight put on earth’s crust by the glacial episodes depressed it. It is still recovering in what is termed isostatic rebound. However, it is not like a rigid, flat plate rising back up. Rather, there are unequal rates of rise and dips along the edges, etc. That gives rise (pun intended) to varied sea lowering and rising along coastal areas or in large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes.
While looking up “isostatic rebound” to make certain my basic ducks were in a row and floating, I saw the first listing on the browser was from Yahoo News debunking the idea of isostatic rebound following glaciation. So, move over, all you geologists who have spent careers researching and measuring the effects of glacial ice loads…..Yahoo News just declared you hogwash. Likely BBC will be thrilled.
You are right on all this Joan, as indeed, as ever, is Paul. However, “it’s more complicated than that” due to the extra combined impacts of:
1) dumping incalculable tonnages of building materials on soft sediments;
2) that city and environs, having being built, then extracting barely calculable amounts of groundwater annually from the same underlying sediments.
1) and 2) alone are causing subsidence of coastal cities in many parts of the world. Add the glacial rebound effects and you really are in trouble!
Last but not least, this gem: “Sea level rise is global. But due to a variety of factors – including, for this part of the Atlantic coast, a likely weakening of the Gulf Stream, itself potentially a result of the melting of Greenland’s ice caps – south Floridians are feeling the effects more than many others.” This is such a stupid statement that you have to wonder if the writer is just a complete idiot or a bare-faced liar.
Nothing to do with pumping freshwater out of the aquifers or stopping silt build up adding to the land, then?
I gave up with the BBC several years ago as they are corrupted by bias and propaganda which is getting worse and worse. In my days as a PR consultant I used to deal with BBC editors and producers about getting clients on programmes and was nearly always told that they were looking for a particular angle to suit their agenda. They were not trying to present an objective balanced view. If my client fitted that agenda then all well and good. If not, then I had no chance.
The worse offender is the Radio 4 Today programme which seems to be publicists for Greenpeace, Friends if the Earth, and other Green advocates. I try to avoid listening if I can and have often angrily switched off the radio to avoid hearing such ignorant bollocks.
I truly despair that we have such a distorted public sector broadcaster riddled with groupthink (read the late Christopher Booker) and with an arrogant disdain for those who disagree with their Holy Writ.
Harcourt,
A good comment. Thanks for the insight.
Arfur
This is absolutely true – the producers decide on the story and then the reporters go out to find people who support that line. I have been interviewed and had everything I said end up on the cutting room floor because my opinions didn’t fit the story. These people are totally unprofessional.
Just out of interest, I wonder if the author ever asked his dad if the basement water was sea water or not?
“With tides higher than they have been in decades – and far higher than when this swampy, tropical corner of the US began to be drained and built on a century ago – many of south Florida’s drainage systems and seawalls are no longer enough.” So AGW is even more powerful than we thought, its increased the gravitational forces from the Sun and Moon!
I saw that also Andrew. Please and I know it is a thankless task put in a complaint to the BBC. They have actually made it easier. I know what the answer will be and this is where they are clever. Sea level is relative so what I assume they call “higher” tides is because the land has lowered BUT…. if no one complains then they will add increasing tide levels to their collection of climate crap to keep putting out there. It works…. ever tried to have an empirical data based scientific discussion with a believer….. it is a very frustrating and vexatious experience because they play dirty and think nothing of attacking you as a person when they have nothing scientific to defend their indefensible view point.
With respect to those islands in the Pacific…
“Another study related to sea-level rise (Webb and Kench 2010) appears to contradict the general anticipation that the impacts of climate change will eventually make low-lying reef islands unable to support human occupation. It uses aerial and satellite images taken over the past 60 years, a time during which there is evidence that sea levels have risen, to compare the landform dynamics of 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific Ocean. The study found that as a whole, instead of declining, the islands grew in land area by a total of 63 ha or seven percent.
The research findings show that although sea level in the central Pacific Ocean rose by about 2.0 mm/yr over the study period and that all 27 islands changed physically during that time, there is considerable variation in the amount and style of change between and among the islands, with an overall net increase in land area; 86 percent of the islands remained relatively stable or their outline or shape increased in size. Twelve of the 27 islands increased in size by more than three percent but only four islands reduced in area by more than three percent.”
2.0 mm/yr for 60 years… less than five inches.
This may appear a little long winded but there is a point so please stay with me and save the coma till the end.
Sea level is relative. Relative Sea Level is referenced by a position on land. Now the sea level indeed can and does rise AND fall but so does the land. Sea level rise and fall is eustacy and land rise and fall is isostasy. The Upper Crust of the Earth floats on a more plastic Lower Crust and Mantle. Push it down in one place and for equilibrium it will rise in another. All very simple and logical. The UK for example is rebounding from the ice sheet which covered a large proportion of the land mass during the first part of the current Ice Age and pushed the land in the North down. The net rebound effect today is that Scotland is rising and the South of England sinking, nothing at all to do with NET sea level rise due to increased volume of water. A second land movement is caused by tectonics caused usually when there is an interaction at the margins of two continental tectonic plates.. Next comes sediment behaviour on coastal planes. A river is really an emulsion of sediment suspended in water and when the sediment is deposited finally it contains a lot of water and that water wants to get out. Where rivers meet the sea the velocity suddenly is reduced because the river collides with the sea dropping its sediment load usually to form Deltas. Deltas are another thing which subside all on their own. With a little help from humans they can and do subside substantially faster! . Deltas prograde out into the ocean, get slope failure and also dewater so they subside. Put some humans running around on top and sinking water wells and guess what happens, the sediments dewater all the more quickly. (The political scientists of the BBC does try it on every 6 months or so to blame the high rate at which the Mekong delta is sinking incredibly on sea level rise alone!) If you do do not have a grasp of the relative influence of eustacy, isostasy tectonics and sediment type and consolidation processes at the coast you cannot possibly predict forward how relative sea level will behave.
So now onto the climate poster boys those sinking Pacific atols. These are the emotional symbols of Western man’s wickedness falsely touted but REAL wicked people among the plethora of hand wringing activist groups. However, there is a lot more going on than you will ever hear from the wailing political scientists, profiteers and their chums spreading the media message, Atols are extinct volcanoes. They form on basaltic oceanic crust over a hot spot in the Earth’s mantle. Heat causes the crust to rise and like a teenage pimple the volcano erupts and as a consequence builds up and up, in some cases forming an island. Now! The oceanic plates are not stationary. Some move faster than others. So the volcano is not stationary but moves relative to the hotspot. Once the volcano has moved off the hotspot three things happen, Firstly, the volcano stops erupting, secondly it begins to sink because the heat source under it is no longer there and third it begins to erode or should I say new eruptions no longer keep pace with erosion. In time a combination of sinking and erosion takes it down to sea level. Corals can form only in relatively shallow water. While there is an volcano with steep sides, any reefs will be small and constantly destroyed. Only when the top of the volcano is eroded away does sufficient area within the correct depth(and energy ) range permit a decent rim of coral to form.
Next comes the problem. The coral grows up towards the sunlight at a maximum rate per species controlled by several factors ( water temperature salinity, nutrients etc). Sea level is not a constant but varies up and down. The live coral wants to be as close to sea level as possible because it needs sunlight so very often it gets exposed sub-aerially and wonder of wonders bleaching occurs. The fact we have coral islands shows that in the recent past sea level was much higher. So back to what the atol is doing. The atol may sink at a similar rate to coral growth or the coral grows faster than the atol sinks but inevitably the coral will lose the race and inevitably the island disappears below the waves. Now not all rates of sinking atols are the same and in some instances TODAY quite a number of islands made from coral are actually growing. As for the sinking or drowned atol, after some time it can the be called a guyot. These can be found often hundreds of metres below sea level often with fossilised coral reefs attached to them. The hotspots do not emit lava constantly but like everything else in the universe they are pulsed. Because of this and because of the plate movements a volcanic island chain is formed which allows the casual observer to track the movement of the tectonic plate. The Hawaiian island chain is one example of a long lived hot spot at work. There are also isolated volcanic islands which are not part of a chain but represent individual short lived Mantle plumes.
So given that atols are what they are, a complex combination of extinct sinking and eroding volcano and different coral species growing at different rates in different geographical locations on top of them, how on earth can they be used as a poster boy for NET sea level rise especially when real empirical data shows some of those poster children actually growing, except by people who will happily and wilfully deceive for profit or for power, or for both.
JC, loved your explanation. For context, what is your background if you don’t mind me asking?
Hi Mike. Like the “Mad” may I adopt it because the hat begins to fit! In reply to your question my first degree and my passion in life is geology and my second degree is in geophysics which helps make sense of a lot of what we cannot see by using physics. Geology is a life skill. Physics can be learned relatively quickly but still 35 years into working as a geophysicist I use my knowledge of geology and still learn new things about this incredible dynamic and resilient planet we live on every day. The disheartening thing for me is to see the abuse of science today as a political weapon. The Enlightenment took us away from ideology and emotion and let empirical data guide decision making. The shear nonsense spouted across the board with little scientific half truths wrapped up in assertion brings down the red veil for me. I have mentioned before that there IS a problem with atmospheric CO2 in that it has been steadily and inexorably declining for 160 million years. This is an empirical data based fact. During that time Ice Ages have come and gone multiple times which is no surprise because the geological evidence only supports the physics when it comes to the claimed greenhouse naughtiness of CO2. That is a time scale to sit up and pay attention to, not the pathetic juvenile correlations that are carried by the IPCC for a few hundred or thousands of years and touted by the lead shyster Gore for profit. This is a real and serious concern YET our impartial friends in the media ignore the fact that we are en trend for atmospheric CO2 levels to hit the line at which photosynthesis stops in around 1.8 million years OR SOONER. The sooner is because in the depths of the first part of the current Ice Age atmospheric CO2 levels fell to around 180ppm, 20ppm above the death of plants and consequently the end of oxygen breathing life on Earth. The Earth will be back in full on Ice Age in a relatively short time geologically speaking. The problem which should be being discussed (if this was not really about dangerous political control allied to the sickest portion of the corporate world), is how to continue bringing back the CO2 locked up in carbonaceous rocks into the Carbon Cycle. The deficit in the Carbon Cycle is immense. Those molluscs got too darned good at sequestrating it and locking it up in rocks when they die. Imagine my attitude after reading this when I read the BS about Net Zero and mad ideas to get rid of CO2! The Enlightenment is not only under threat, it is over. Take care JonS 🙂
Mad Scotty, with your background, I’m not surprised you are spiting feathers. I use the Mad bit because I’m sure that is what my extended family calls me when I have the temerity to question what is quite clearly settled science. My background is in physical heath and being exposed to medical certainties which turn out to be fads has taught me to question virtually anything that is said to me. I only do it mentally initially and if it sounds OK I let it pass, you can’t check everything all the time, but there are warning bells that I listen to.
The real sadness is the unquestioning acceptance, displayed by most, of almost anything that is printed. Nobody seems to want to use their brains to evaluate just how likely something is against what they already know or think they know. Where are the questioning minds of the younger generations?
Please don’t worry about “ranting” or posting longish items. I, at least, enjoy them even if I do mentally question them.
The use of long term trend lines by NOAA is deceptive and takes the eye away from what is actually happening. For example, Fernandino beach, there was a large decline from around 1905 to around 1925, a recovery followed by a further decline from around 1948 to around 1972. There was a two year hike followed by a further decline and the period from mid 80’s to 2010 is going nowhere. Current sea level is lower than around 1994/5. The recent rise over the last 10 years is no different to the one from 1939/4 to around 1950.
Take away the extended trend lines and a different picture emerges. From the graph there is only a 0.1 metre rise from around 1904/5 to 2020, a rise of just under 4″ in 115 years, hardly accelerating. This is all about chartsmanship and presentation, graph scales, start and end points.
I am confused – “… a likely weakening of the Gulf Stream, itself potentially a result of the melting of Greenland’s ice caps…”
I understood that the Gulf Stream results from a combination of the equatorial drift funnelled into the gulf below Jamaica and the river outfall from the Mississippi Missouri being squeezed out past the keys and up the American coast. I don’t see how Greenland melting could weaken it and, if it did, it would surely lower sea levels around Florida rather than increase them?
Dilutes salt water switching off the Gulf Stream. Unlikely as Greenland cannot melt before the next glaciation at present rates.
Push it south yes, but I don’t see it switching it off at the Florida coast – pushing it south would disconnect it from the North Atlantic drift (which is what most people in the U.K. call the Gulf Stream). The NA drift would then become a cold current because it would pick up the Greenland melt water instead of the Gulf Stream. But that does not seem likely to affect the Gulf Stream at source in the west Atlantic.
The BBC seems to be confusing the Gulf Stream – which is a particular surface current – with a thermohaline current – which currents form a world-girdling system, of density-driven flows and upwellings and return flows, reliant on initial downwelling in the North.
The downwelling does not ‘suck’ the Gulf Stream into existence.
The Sun, working on the atmosphere, causes the prevailing wind which makes the Gulf Stream.
Should the Greenland Ice Sheet release large amounts of fresh water into the ocean, there is a theory to the effect that this could – after a few centuries – interfere with the downwelling. The Gulf Stream would keep bringing the water North, but some other, new surface flow would be necessary to balance this.
What Geography teachers force into the heads of children concerning the Gulf Stream is misleading:
https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/
The following academic consortium simply pooh-poohs the idea that the Gulf Stream will weaken:
https://www.bjerknes.uib.no/en/article/news/gulf-stream-wind-driven-giant
Many thanks!
I would have thought that the large tonnage of steel and concrete would also be a significant factor in subsidence on swampy or unstable ground. I presume it is factored into planning on vulnerable sites.
If we can measure a constantly moving sea level rise or fall to as little as 1mm, then it should be easy to measure whether the static buildings in the area are sinking as has been suggested by a number of bloggers. Measuring any possible sinking seems to me to vitally important, and if sinking of buildings is proven then the argument for the rising of the sea in that area is settled without further discussion.
‘The first time my father’s basement flooded, it was shortly after he moved in. The building was an ocean-front high-rise’
A basement. On the ocean front. It flooded. WELL ggggooooooooolllllllllyyyyyy!
It is common building practice to put little of value on the GROUND FLOOR of ocean front property. A basement is nuts.
K. It’s convenient for parking. But it has to be EXPECTED to flood periodically. GROUND LEVEL IS EXPECTED TO BE FLOODED.
Exactly . Even far inland parking areas and garages are allowed to be within overland flow paths as the piped stormwater system is only designed for say up to 20yr rainfall event. Any more than that and its designed to flow across the surface to eventually reach the watercourse. These overland flow paths are a ‘hidden’ feature of any urban area built in the last 50 years. The trick is not not be complacent about parking a car in such a flow path .
Bingo. The parking garage is below sea level. Everyone knowlingly (unless one is daft like said son and father) built and bought that periodic flooding would occur and not at some distant point in the future, but now. To construe this in any way to be connected to GW is brain dead thinking.
“Throughout most of its history, Florida has been under water. Portions of the Florida peninsula have been above or below sea level at least four times. As glaciers of ice in the north expanded and melted, the Florida peninsula emerged and submerged. When the sea level was lowest, the land area of Florida was much larger than it is now. The sea level was as much as 100 feet lower than at present. Florida’s west coastline was probably 100 miles further out. As the climate warmed, the glaciers melted. This raised the sea level and flooded the Florida peninsula. The sea level stood at least 100 to 150 feet above the present level. Florida probably consisted of islands.”
https://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/land/land.htm
Another point about reefs in your link says:
“The formation of the Florida Keys occurred when tiny coral created a 150-mile long chain of underwater coral reefs. As the landmass of southern Florida began its slow rise, the reefs also began to emerge.”
So the coral reefs rose as the sea level did so and the Florida Keys still exist to this day. The size and shape would have differed but stay just above sea level as they are now.
“Throughout most of its history, Florida has been under water.”
Uhhh . . . no. History is written. Florida’s history begins about 500 years ago.
As many of the above contributors have pointed out the BBC presents a serious problem on the issue of accurately reporting climate change. They have been doing this for a very long time now and continue to lie about “not being biased”. The BBC is a problem that needs to be remedied if the tide is to be turned against the green zealotry. I hope the government plans for abolition of the license fee actually get somewhere. Sadly I am not holding my breath on that one.
Am I supposed to worry about the welfare of Florida residents, according to Bloomberg being some of the wealthiest in US⸮.
If sea level worries them my suggestion is to move.
Here is an analysis by Paul from 2017 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/miami-beach-turning-into-modern-day-atlantis-fake-news-bbc/
Also another from What’s up with that by Kip Hansen a year earlier
Something I find quite incredible is the shear audacity of the climate fraudsters and their faithful media lapdogs and how pathetically little they produce for the incredible money they are taking daily.
They clearly have figured out that the Joe and Josephine Public are pretty dim and ill-educated and have memories like goldfish because the shockingly poor quality of their “science” coupled with a regular a clockwork regurgitation of the same old same old on a 6 monthly or yearly basis regardless of clear and what should be final debunking. We are already getting told sob stories AGAIN about Polar Bears and the Great Barrier Reef after real scientists actually did real work and not just by shameless people measuring their navel fluff as a function of the size of their staff multiplied by next years grant money that they tout doom and gloom constantly to secure. We are told down right lies about terrible polluting, air quality destroying CO2, about wonderful unicorn renewables and gween credentials of electric cars created from pixi dust and no one seems to mind, certainly not anyone in authority. Are they all in on the scam or is their silence fear?
Here we are, approx 35 years in and how much has the fundamentally flawed socialist political science factory, the IPCC cost and and how many of their models EVER predicted correctly? The best they can do is play word games, keep sexing up the language, re-brand relabel and regurgitate debunked garbage claims. They keep repeating 97% consensus, keep telling us it is “getting worse than we thought” and that polar bears will drown/starve/die and Miami will sink beneath the waves…. all brought to you folks by a failed politician and shyster, an irritatingly smug actor and a very strange 17 year old Swede pretending to be 12.
I keep expecting Douglas Adams to walk in and save us all from this insanity.
The tidal gauge also shows no net SLR between 1983-2003, and an accelerating SLR from ’03-’20. On short-term timelines, data can be really choppy. As I recall, there wasn’t really any discussion about Miami being washed away from SLR until ~10 years ago “and we have the data to back it up” became a hysterical soundbite for the alarmists.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
BBC busy spreading climate change fear and panic to the vulnerable. Paul Homewood corrects the MIAMI sea-level rise record straight with actual “science” and data …
Oh dear I shall have to complain yet again. When Trump wisely pulled the American taxpayer out of the failed Paris Agreement, BBC’s piece by Shukman was notable for its multi-layered lying. With Miami Streets! David Attenborough’s Blue Planet series ended with three howlers- Great Barrier Reef death, fizzing seashells in acid – and – Miami Streets! Stock footage.
Johnathon Scott: we know all that but the fact is that “we” are loosing the debate. The ecos are winning hands down and at every level. The softest spot to try win something back is through parliament – either a Farage led government (unlikely) or a radical reversal of position of (used to be) Tory MPs. We must keep the pressure up.
It is Jonathan by the way but no problem. Actually I still see the use of science. The political route is problematic because they are simply driven by a desire to be in office and taking a counter position may cost them their jobs. This is a house of cards. The card which holds this whole crock up is the claim that CO2 liberated by man which has been unnaturally locked away in fossil fuels for a long time caused the current warming in a series of four warmings which began 350 years ago. Now, all their climate nonsens requires a cause. If there is no proven cause there cannot then be a proven effect. There is NO statistically significant dataset(s) anywhere supporting the CO2 causal hypothesis. NONE! So all they have is a belief system. All the nonsense about climate is just hot air and some very disappointing abuses of the scientific method. Lack of cause means no effect. That has to be the target. Billions are being wasted on worthless research because money is so easy to get if you put “climate change ” in the proposed study title. What they deliberately avoid is the CO2 issue because even A-level physics will teach anyone that dog don’t hunt. We have to play it their way and just keep repeating and repeating empirical data based facts. Yes they have massive and perverse funding but given after 35 years they have so little in their shop window that all they can do is trott out the same old same old garbage about scientific consensus, drowning polar bears and sinking coral atols oh and the Great Barrier Reef which keeps refusing to follow orders and die!