(Photo of Sydney Opera House from Flickr and photographer Michael McDonough)
News Update: The iconic Opera House on Sydney Harbor will be endangered by rising sea levels as early as 2050, not to mention the homes, beaches, hotels and roads that surround the harbor. I’ve been to this beautiful spot and can only imagine what a tragedy that would be for Sydney’s people, economy and way of life. A new Australian study predicts a 2-degree C temperature increase and sea-level rise of 40 centimeters (15.74 inches) by mid-century. Each centimeter results in erosion of about one meter (3 feet-plus). The study, commissioned by New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees and conducted by the University of New South Wales, also forecasts more brushfires and erratic rainfall leading to both water shortages and flooding. The study’s findings have profound implications for urban planning in the region, not just for Sydney but other coastal communities. Rees reiterated his strong support for Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and energy efficiency. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)
1 comment:
Cynthia,
I’m sorry, which peer reviewed science journal published this government “study”?
Oops! It was NOT published in ANY peer reviewed science journal!
In FACT, it was not peer reviewed at ALL!
Wait! It gets better!
It wasn’t even research, nor was this “study” even based on research. Contrary to what the “journalists” falsely assert, this “study” was merely a review of the IPCC literature (which, in itself, is nothing but a highly politicized review of the scientific literature).
Let me quote your own citation:
“The study… uses research from the United Nations' peak scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
I’m sorry, could you show me even ONE research paper EVER published by the IPCC in ANY peer reviewed science journal? Nope! You cannot! Why? Because the IPCC does NOT CONDUCT scientific research! The IPCC purports to review scientific research and then draws (predetermined) conclusions. But, the conclusions are drawn by politicians, NOT by scientists. The politicians take the input from hand picked --- in the tank for AGW --- scientists and distorts an already skewed point of view into a purely political (and totalitarian socialist) point of view.
Wait! It gets better still!
Your beloved IPCC --- erroneously --- projects 7” to 23” of sea level rise in the next 100 years. See Table 3.1 on page 45 of this IPCC link. So, it’s pretty clear that this “study” did little more than regurgitate the worst case scenario from the utterly corrupt and purely political IPCC.
Even the lower end of these increasingly less hysterical IPCC forecasts falsely assumes a positive water vapor feedback mechanism which recent peer reviewed science (published in REAL peer reviewed science journals) is now proving not only incorrect, but upside down.
Click here, watch the videos and listen to REAL scientists who have served as lead authors for the IPCC discuss how pathetically corrupt and politically driven the IPCC really is!
It might help to get the view from a scientist (rather than some “journalists”):
1) “the last interglacial period, the Eemian… was 5 K warmer in Greenland than in our present interglacial period”.
Note: 5K = 5 Celsius = 9F
2) “during the Eemian… it is also known that the global sea level was 4-5 m higher than at present.”
So, if the previous interglacial warming period (the Eemian) produced far warmer temperatures and far higher sea levels, how preposterously arrogant is it to suggest that we can micromanage these PERFECTLY NATURAL cyclical variations?
Click here, examine the history of CO2 concentrations on this planet mapped against the temperature history of this planet and understand how utterly absurd your crusade against CO2 is!
Moral of the story --- NEVER trust an alleged “journalist” (or a politician) to do the work of a scientist!
Post a Comment