Rising Sea Levels?

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit which is equivalent to 0 degrees Celsius (centigrade). Antarctica contains 90% of the worlds ice. Now, most of the Antarctic ice is over land rather than water and is about a mile thick. Ice that is not above land is above the saltwater ocean and can therefore be effected by water temperature. 97% of the total ice in Antarctica is above land, not the sea. In order for the land ice to be melted the temperature on the land would have to be hotter than the freezing point which it doesn't get to and hasn't in around 15 million years.

Lets talk about the Arctic now. It is made up of frozen seawater, not fresh water and therefore takes a slightly lower temperature to freeze. The thickness of the ice is about 7 or 8 feet. Many times over the past millions of years the arctic has been basically ice free, it happens in cycles. The reality is that if all the arctic ice melted it would not raise sea levels to the numbers claimed by climate change models.

Simple answer, the sea is not going to rise and wipe out the islands or coastal areas as we are being told. There have been rises in sea levels in the past; but, they occurred when we came out of ice ages and when the arctic and much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice; but, the last little ice age was (there is disagreement on exact dates) between 1600 and 1800 and happened before we began burning "fossil fuels" (I hate that term because oil does not come from extinct dinosaurs). The little ice age is generally agreed to have been a result of minimal solar spots and flaring for a 70 year period. I should point out that the minor rise in sea levels over since the mid 1800s is primarily due, not to ice melting; but, to the warming of the seas. Warm water takes up more space than cold water. The little ice age did not end because of the burning of fossil fuels, it ended BEFORE we began burning fossil fuels in any meaningful amount.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 and is part of the United Nations. It is built on the assumption of global warming and is a political body, not a scientific one. It has also proven to be frequently wrong in it's claims. This is the same group that is now claiming that we have to take drastic action starting in 2020 to avoid a catastrophe by 2030. Not surprisingly, this means by the next United States Presidential election.

Beyond all of the nonsense and lies come some real questions. Does human behavior have an effect on the environment? The answer is YES. Some of the effects are good and some are bad. One of the worst effects we have is releasing untreated contaminants into the earth and water. Does human behavior increase CO2 levels? The answer again is yes and increases in CO2 have led to increased greening of the earth. An increase in CO2 causes plants to grow more. At the same time, deforestation in the Amazon is decreasing how much CO2 adds to plant life and the creation of Oxygen. Animals take in oxygen and exhale CO2, plants convert CO2 into oxygen. Without CO2 you have no plants and without oxygen, you have no animals. Can we test the limits of these on life? Yes, we can determine that and have. We are nowhere close to those limits, not even remotely nor predictively.

I am very anti-pollution. I am also against nuclear power. I do not see any need for allowing India and China sell goods to the west if they will not enforce the same pollution laws as the west does. One quarter of the farmable land in China has been so severely polluted as to not be farmable. They are also the biggest producer of CO2 and under the Paris Climate Accord plan on doubling the number of coal fired energy plant by over 1,000. The United States is not approving any new coal fire plants and is decommissioning many. Burning coal releases different particulates (small pieces of stuff) some of these can increase acidity in the environment; but, many of the particulates can be captured and made neutral or buried without impacting the air. Think of you muffler or a cigarette filter. The point is that we can use technology to reduce the impact of burning stuff for energy by a lot; but, it costs. Europe and the United States have made those changes in technology, Asia has not and because of it will suffer, a lot. A simple solution, put a tariff on China that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting and building power plants that use the latest technology to capture the particulates. What a concept. Second, refuse to allow goods to be sold in your country that are carried on ships that don't use the most modern and effective controls on the particulates they release. Remember 500 cargo ships create more pollution than all of the cars in the United States.

Will making the changes I am suggesting increase costs? YES. But, I can prove that it will reduce pollution and the destruction of the environment. I don't even need some bogus and rigged models to prove it, I can simply use science. The Pimpernel is a true environmentalist and has been since the 1960s. As this blog is anonymous I cannot discuss specifics without being identified. Suffice it to say that I spent 30 years working on environmental issues, primarily in the field of recycling as some of my readers know. I have advised more than one state on recycling. I have also written contract specifications that others have adopted to use recycled materials. Oddly enough, my greatest impact in the United States was probably on accounting, lol and I am not an accountant.

In science, you get what you pay for. If you are funded by a government that wants an answer, you can buy it. If you are funded by and industry that wants an answer, you can buy it. This is the reason why I have never monetized this site. You cannot buy me and everyone I worked with in business knows this.

I have not provided source documentation today. I want you to look these things up, I want you to inform yourself. There are videos I could have provided and links that would back up what I have said; but, I want you to do it. We are about to be asked to totally change life in the western world over CO2 emissions. You cannot be part of the discussion if you don't take the time to look it up for yourself. If only a few decide for us, democracy is a joke and so is freedom. Check out what I said and ask me questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If we are to give up our freedom to live in 250 square feet apartments and eat less meat and spend trillions to go to "sustainable energy", it deserves your investigation.

Just for fun let me add this in. Lifespans have averages and extremes. The oldest person ever that we can prove lived to be lived to 129 years. People have claimed over 130 but without any proof. The average age has fluctuated based on what is going on in the world (wars, famine, disease...); but, the limit has not changed. We are not now seeing people live to 150 or more, just not happening. The highest temperature recorded is 136 Fahrenheit though some sources say it was 134. I personally experienced 128 and it sucked. Both are based on thermometer readings over the last 120 years, not really the hottest ever because at earlier points in time the earth was burning much hotter. The heat range hasn't changed in all the time that we have used thermometer temps. We are not living longer, we just dying earlier. The average has changed, not the range, that is called variability. Never confuse the two. Averages change based on conditions and cycles, limits not so much.

Lets say that we wanted to control the temperature and lets say that we thought CO2 was a control, something we could effect to control the climate. Now lets say we knew the other variables that changed the climate. Okay, then we would want the ability to change the CO2 amount at will to keep a constant climate. We would not want CO2 emissions to just go down, we want to be able to adjust them to regulate the climate. Wouldn't we? I don't think we want another ice age, I think we would want the ability to avoid that. Up until the 1980s we feared another ice age, I remember and you can read articles about it by searching for it. Now we are told we shall enter a heat age. It is nonsense; but the bigger question is, what should the earths temperature be? Are we shooting for stasis or a range, if stasis then we must be able to adjust to get that temperature. What is the temp we are looking for and does it mean every part of the earth should be the same?