Current temperature in Plano, TX: 78°F, not a cloud in the sky. Needed a/c in the car.
As some may be aware, the Brits have been getting slammed by storm after storm after storm, bringing rain, floods, gales, more rain, more floods, more gales, and now… snow.
Even the stiff upper lip of Mr. Free Market is trembling, as witnessed by something he sent me yesterday:
Although I must say that the views on the FM estate are quite lovely:
Yeah,I know: according to the global warmists, snowfalls in Britain were supposed to be a thing of the past. So who are you going to believe: a bunch of watermelon alarmists and panic-stirring journalists [some overlap], or your own lying eyes?
The night before last saw our first freeze of the season, which predictably brought howls of anguish and suffering from our north Texas residents — I mean, I had to turn on the car’s heater (and turn off the house’s a/c) for the first time since April.
Of course, this opens us up to ridicule from our northern neighbors:
Bet at least we’re not as bad as Florida:
I wonder how many trick-or-treaters will have to change out of those Tarzan- or ballerina costumes for tonight?
Found via Insty (thankee, Squire), is this incredible piece of investigative journalism done by someone who, I suspect, isn’t a journalist:
Horrifying: Media and Climate Hoaxers (But I Repeat Myself) Report That Literally Everywhere on Earth is Warming at Twice the Rate of the Rest of the Earth
You’d think an actual journalist (I know, more rare than a virgin at a Clinton cocktail party) would have noticed this, but as the headline suggests, most of the journo persuasion are riding the Doom Wagon (no relation) for all it’s worth.
Anyway, follow the link and read it all the way to the end, where Ace makes this conclusion:
One begins to suspect that climate “scientists” have made up a scheme of dozens of “adjustments” they have granted themselves to make to the actual data, enabling them to tweak any temperature down and any other temperature up.
As we say here in Texas: ya thank?
Apparently everyone who lives within fifty miles of a beach is soon going to be drowned because of rising sea levels caused by SUVs, the Koch brothers and plastic straws, etc. At best, yer house is going to float away.
The oceans could swell nearly seven feet by the end of the century – destroying the homes of almost 200 million people, according to new research.
It would wipe out over a million square miles of farming and other food producing lands – having ‘profound consequences for humanity.’
This is over twice as much as previous ‘doomsday’ predictions – suggesting the world really is facing a global warming ‘apocalypse.’
The shock finding is based on a technique called structured expert judgment (SEJ) that pooled the knowledge of 22 climate change specialists.
…none of whom have any kind of agenda or may derive government funding to further their “research”, of course. [/sarc]
As for “structured expert judgement”: can anyone think of a better euphemism for average guesswork than this one?
And here’s where the fun begins. Apparently, SMOD is now a glacier:
Global sea levels could rise as much as 10ft (3 metres) if the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica collapses.
Sea level rises threaten cities from Shanghai to London, to low-lying swathes of Florida or Bangladesh, and to entire nations such as the Maldives.
In the UK, for instance, a rise of 6.7ft (2 metres) or more may cause areas such as Hull, Peterborough, Portsmouth and parts of east London and the Thames Estuary at risk of becoming submerged.
The collapse of the glacier, which could begin with decades, could also submerge major cities such as New York and Sydney.
So, SUVs etc. are going to cause the Thwaites Glacier to melt away and drown us all? Before we all start to panic, exchange the old F-150 for a Prius and head for the Appalachians, let’s acknowledge that said glacier is melting — just not because of anything we’re doing. According to the Oracle Watts:
The Thwaites Glacier has been the focus of considerable attention in recent weeks as other groups of researchers found the glacier is on the way to collapse, but more data and computer modeling are needed to determine when the collapse will begin in earnest and at what rate the sea level will increase as it proceeds. The new observations by [University of Texas Institute of Geophysics] will greatly inform these ice sheet modeling efforts.
Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.
The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise. [my emphasis]
The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth’s crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Put simply, for Men Of Simple Brain such as myself: the Thwaites Glacier is melting, but there’s sweet fuck all anyone can do about it. Unless swapping the F-150 for a Prius will prevent tectonic plate shift, that is. (I’m going to shut up now before I give these climate loons any ideas.)
Frankly, any natural event which drowns all of NYFC, Lawn Guyland and Joizee City can’t be all bad…
Over the years, several people have pointed me to Willis Eschenbach’s Skating Under The Ice, and it’s very, very good. Of late, however, this post has (and should have) become a landmark in the seemingly-endless debate on climate change, in that Willis applies an age-old accounting principle to the issue of carbon dioxide levels, thus:
Now, for me, discussing the “social cost of carbon” is a dereliction of scientific duty because it is only half of an analysis.
A real analysis is where you draw a vertical line down the middle of a sheet of paper. At the top of one side of the paper you write “Costs”, and under that heading, you list the costs of whatever you are analyzing … and at the top of the other side of the paper you write “Benefits” and beneath, you list those benefits. This is what is called a “cost/benefit analysis”, and only considering only the “Costs” column and ignoring the “Benefits” column constitutes scientific malfeasance.
…and then, in brilliant detail, he shows the other half. It’s a very long read, but if you don’t do it all, you’re doing yourself a disservice. His conclusion is stunning:
[T]he benefit that we get from emitting that additional tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is an increase in goods and services of $4,380 … which dwarfs the assumed social cost of carbon of $40. When we do an actual cost/benefit analysis, the result is almost all benefit.
I admit that I had only thought in vague terms about this topic, because I always took it for granted that social benefit came from industry, and that the greater the industry, the greater the benefit. What I had never done was quantify the benefit; and now I don’t have to, because now it’s been done, irrefutably.