“Modern sea-level rise linked to human activities, Rutgers research reaffirms” = Unmitigated Horst Schist!

May 16, 2020

This is unmitigated horst schist…

The largest sea-level decline took place during the last glacial period about 20,000 years ago, when the water level dropped by about 400 feet. That was followed by a foot per decade rise in sea level – a rapid pace that slowed from 10,000 to 2,000 years ago. Sea-level rise was then at a standstill until around 1900, when rates began rising as human activities began influencing the climate.

  • “The largest sea-level decline took place during the last glacial period about 20,000 years ago, when the water level dropped by about 400 feet.”

The sea-level decline of the last Pleistocene glacial stage didn’t take place about 20 kya.  It started about 130 kya and ended about 20 kya… And it was unremarkable in the context of the Late Pleistocene.

image-36Late Pleistocene sea level, older is toward the right.. (Spratt & Lisiecki, 2016)

  • “That was followed by a foot per decade rise in sea level – a rapid pace that slowed from 10,000 to 2,000 years ago.”

It abruptly slowed about 9 kya, reaching its Holocene maximum between 7 and 3 kya.

Siddall et al., 2003 is a reconstruction of global sea level over the past 470,000 years constructed from Red Sea sediment cores.  Here is the reconstruction since the last glacial maximum.

image-19

Older is toward the right.   Note the error bar is ±12 meters.

  • “Sea-level rise was then at a standstill until around 1900, when rates began rising as human activities began influencing the climate.”

Compared to the 20th and 21st centuries, sea level was oscillating wildly from 2 kya to 1900 AD.

Brock et al., 2008 featured the Holocene portion of Siddall’s reconstruction, clearly demonstrating that sea level was significantly higher than today for most of the past 3,000 years.

Global last 7,000 years, error bars omitted.  Older toward left.

Sea level was falling from about 1 kya to 1850 AD due to neoglaciation.  It’s been rising at a wholly unremarkable rate of about 1-3 mm/yr since the mid-19th century.

Sea level reconstruction from tide gauge data (Jevrejeva et al., 2014). Note rock pick added for scale.  Older is toward the left.

Sea level reconstructions are terribly imprecise. Oxygen isotope chronologies can have error bars as large as 30 meters (Siddall et al., 2003). Dating error bars are also generally fairly large. Fossil terraced beaches provide some of the best evidence for past higher sea levels, but they aren’t particularly easy to put into an Excel spreadsheet. Uplift and subsidence of the land can have a large impact on local sea level changes. Woodroffe & Horton, 2005 (linked) provide an excellent summary of the methods and challenges in reconstructing paleo-sea level changes.

Evidence for the Mid- to Late-Holocene highstand(s) is not present everywhere. Evidence is lacking on the Mississippi delta (Törnqvist et al, 2004), probably due to rapid subsidence.  While it may not have been universal or synchronous, there does appear to be strong evidence that Holocene sea levels were significantly higher than today over much of the world and that past natural oscillations were of much higher magnitude than observed sea level changes over the past ~200 years.

This is would be fraud in the private sector…

231565_web

Earth hasn’t been an ice-free world in nearly 40 million years. It’s as irrelevant to the science as an image of what a water-free world would look like.

This is how actual sea level rise relates to the Statue of Liberty.

Lady Liberty has nothing to fear from the Adjustocene Sea. What’s that? You can’t see the sea level trend? It’s right down there at sea level… between the water and the base of Liberty Island.

The study showed that periods of nearly ice-free conditions, such as 17 million to 13 million years ago, occurred when the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide – a key greenhouse gas driving climate change – was not much higher than today.

17 to 13 Mya was not “nearly ice-free”.


Zachos et al., 2001 (older is toward the bottom).

And atmospheric CO2 could have been anywhere from 200 to 500 ppm during the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum (MMCO).


Neogene-Quaternary temperature and carbon dioxide (older is toward the left).

We can see that the range of estimates for MMCO range from 200 to 500 ppm, rendering any efforts to draw conclusions about  CO2 and the MMCO totally pointless. According to Pagani et al, 1999:

There is no evidence for either high pCO2 during the late early Miocene climatic optimum or a sharp pCO2 decreases associated with
EAIS growth.

Pagani et al., 1999

Pagani et al., suggest that changes in oceanic circulation driven by plate tectonics (opening of the Drake Passage) and the presence (or lack thereof) of a large polar ice sheet were the primary drivers of Miocene climate change.

Middle Miocene Volcanism, Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change

However, glacial periods occurred when the Earth was previously thought to be ice-free, such as from 48 million to 34 million years ago.

“Glacial periods” have occurred throughout the Cenozoic.  This is why the sedimentary record demonstrates cyclical sea level changes.  While the frequency of these cycles was lower during the Paleogene, they still occurred.

Global cycles of sea level change over Cenozoic Era, Vail et al., 1977.

The Guardian: “Climate change denial won’t even benefit oil companies soon”… Is it even grammatically possible to deny climate change?

Any “glacial periods” from 48 to 34 Mya occurred when the Earth was cooling (but much warmer than today) and atmospheric CO2 was anywhere from 400 to 2500 ppm.

Steinthorsdottir et al., 2019

Eocene Climatic Optima: Another Clean Kill of Carbon Dioxide-Driven Climate Change Hypothesis?

Lunar Recession

March 11, 2020

 

cm/yr Years cm km mi/km mi Earth-Moon (mi)
3.8    4,500,000,000    17,100,000,000    171,000 0.621371    106,254                   132,646
3.8    1,000,000,000      3,800,000,000      38,000 0.621371      23,612                   215,288

EIA Maps

January 29, 2020

https://www.eia.gov/maps/maps.htm

Wind in Texas

December 29, 2019

Wind works fairly well in Texas…

Wind works fairly well in Texas for exactly one reason: Physical geography.

The wind resource in the Lower Plains has some seasonal variability, but is  a fairly consistent resource.

Would Texas be better off with no wind and more coal and natural gas?  At natural gas prices of $2-2.50/mcf… We probably would be better off… But that doesn’t mean that wind doesn’t work here.  Texas has relatively low electricity rates despite our investment in wind.  When the decisions were made to support the exploitation of Texas’ winde resource, natural gas was $5-12/mcf and no one anticipated that the “shale revolution” was right around the corner.

Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon on August 1, 2008…

We think gas prices will stay in this $9 to $11 range, there’ll be times like in July when they’re above it, there’ll be times when they’re below it and of course the weather will matter a lot as well. But we’re pretty confident that much below $9 you’d see a drop off in drilling activity particularly among the conventional drilling and then those pretty aggressive 35% to 40% first year declines are going to kick in and rebalance the market.

I saw something the other day where some analysts had come up with production in 2010 was going to be up by something like 8 to 10 BCF a day and gas prices were going to be $6.25. That kind of analysis I think can only come at the dangerous intersection of Excel and PowerPoint, it can’t happen in reality.

Seeking Alpha

Natural gas prices have been below $6/mcf since December 2008 and below $4/mcf since August 2011… https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm

Hindsight is often 20:20… Business decisions can’t be made on hindsight.

 

Climate Spending

October 27, 2019

No business or industry could out-spend the Climatariat.

Unlike governments, academia and nonprofit organizations, businesses are legally bound to protect the fiduciary interests of their owners/shareholders. Spending large sums of shareholders’ money for purposes not directly related to increasing shareholder value is not consistent with this fiduciary responsibility. The purpose of a business is to generate a profitable return for its owners/shareholders.

Governments, academia and nonprofit organizations are free to spend every bit of their income on AGW propaganda. Furthermore, governments have the power to confiscate business earnings and spend it on AGW propaganda.

Brulle (2013) found that 91 climate change counter-movement (CCCM) organizations had a combined annual income of about $900 million/yr, with $64 million/yr coming from “foundation support” (AKA industries).

Climatic Change
February 2014, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 681-694
Date: 21 Dec 2013

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

Robert J. Brulle

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.   LINK

The total average annual income of 91 “CCCM” organizations was ~$900 million from 2003-2010. An average of $64 million per year of that total came from philanthropic foundations. About 5% of the $64M/yr came from Koch affiliated foundations and about 1% came from the ExxonMobil Foundation.

The CCCM’s include the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato and just about every pro-business libertarian/conservative think tank in the US. While all of these organizations devote at least a fraction of their resources to protecting the US economy from Gorebots, greenhadists and enviromarxists, the only ones primarily focused on the AGW fraud are Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receive a whopping 2-3% of ~$64 million per year from as many as 140 different foundations.

As of March 2017…

The Natural Resources Defense Council is totally dedicated to the imposition of Enviromarxism in the USA and religiously devoted to the AGW myth. Their annual income ($100 million) is more than the combined income of the American Enterprise Institute ($45 million), Cato Institute ($29 million), Heartland Institute ($5) and Competitive Enterprise Institute ($6 million).

The Columbia Earth Institute (run by Marxist economist Jeffrey Sachs) has an annual budget of ~$130 million…

In the 21st century, the preeminent need of our economy and society is to solve the problem of global sustainability…

[…]

The problem with the modern university is that it is organized around disciplinary fields, like biology and economics, or professional skills, such as engineering and law. While public policy schools have brought together many fields to attempt to solve policy problems, and business schools have done the same in attempting to train business leaders, both lack the grounding in sciences and engineering needed to address the issues of global sustainability. What is needed is a new form of academic organization that is university-wide, with the mission of institutionalizing interaction among all of these fields to address the problems of global sustainability.

The Earth Institute is precisely that: a new form of academic institution that integrates the knowledge base of the 21st century university to address the problems of global sustainability. Its mission is to develop programs of research, education, outreach and practical application of knowledge to address the critical issue of global sustainability.

[…]

The Institute is not a school, and does not grant degrees, but has partnered with schools to create and in many cases manage educational programs. These educational programs include non-degree programs of adult and executive education, but they also include the following degree programs:

  • Undergraduate major in Sustainable Development,
  • PhD in Sustainable Development,
  • MS in Sustainability Management,
  • MPA in Environmental Science and Policy,
  • MPA in Development Practice, and
  • MA in Climate and Society

LINK

$130 million per year to teach liberal arts majors to sound “sciencey” when spouting Enviromarxist psychobabble.

As of 2014, our Federal government was spending  least $12 billion (more like $21 billion) on the AGW myth.   Here’s the just “tip of the climateberg”…

Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. As shown in figure 1, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 1993:

technology to reduce emissions,
science to better understand climate change, and
international assistance for developing countries.

Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

While the billions spent by Enviromarxist terrorist groups (NRDC, WWF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.), academia and government pushing the AGW fraud are at least an order of magnitude larger than CCCM spending, the cost of mostly pointless regulations is at least 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) greater than CCCM spending.

Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.  LINK

The Climatariat demonstrate even more mental deficiency when they babble on about ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers than they do when they babble about the 97% consensus supporting their 95% failed hypothesis.

Marcellus v Block Island

October 23, 2019

Marcellus 2Marcellus 1

Click to access 20181101-NFG-IR-Presentation-Q4-FY-18-FINAL.pdf

mmBtu Years Project Cost $/mmBtu
Block Island WF 30 MW 40% CF     3,412,000 20  $  290,000,000  $    84.99
Avg Marcellus Well 6 Bcf EUR     6,000,000 10  $       4,440,000  $       0.74

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nfg

 

Subs at North Pole

October 18, 2019

The United States Navy.

The North Pole may not have been totally ice free in 1962, but there clearly was a lot of open water…

*USS SKATE (SSN 578), CDR Joseph L. Skoog (Dr. W.K. Lyon and Richard Boyle), and USS SEADRAGON (SSN 584), CDR Charles D. Summitt, (Walter Wittman) conducted the first rendezvous of 2 ships at the North Pole

*Dr. Waldo Lyon received President’s Distinguished Federal Civilian Service Award, presented by President John F. Kennedy

SSN 578 Skate

SSN 584 Seadragon in background…

This is what a submarine (SSN 638 Whale, 1969) looks like when it breaks through ice…

*USS WHALE (SSN 638), CDR William M. Wolff, operated in the Arctic Ocean and first SSN 637 Class submarine to surface at the North Pole, 60 years to the day after ADM Peary arrived there (Dr. W.K. Lyon and Richard Boyle)

SSN 578 Skate in 1959…

Caption: On 17 March 1959, the nuclear submarine Skate (SSN-578) surfaced through Arctic ice at the North Pole. She had visited the Pole the previous year, becoming the second ship to do so.

Clearly, in 1962, neither Skate nor Seadragon had to break through ice.

Direct Air Capture

October 9, 2019

Pulling carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and using it to make synthetic fuel seems like the ultimate solution to climate change: Instead of adding ever more CO2 to the air from fossil fuels, we can simply recycle the same CO2 molecules over and over. But such technology is expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Now, in a new study, scientists say future chemical plants could drop that cost below $100 per ton—which could make synthetic fuels a reality in places such as California that incentivize low-carbon fuels.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air

Chemical equation:

16[CO2] + 18[H2O] → 2[C8H18] + 25[O2]

It takes 8.89 kg of CO2 to make 1 gallon of octane.

The cost of extracting the CO2 from the air is currently about $600/ton.  This works out to $5.33/gal just to get the CO2.  $100/ton would bring this down to about $0.89/gal.

Carbon Engineering claims that the cost of generating the synthetic fuel  will be comparable to biodiesels once they have scaled up the process.

CE’s engineering work shows that AIR TO FUELS™ technology can produce fuels for less than $1.00 /L once scaled up, making them cost competitive with biodiesels. While currently more expensive than the production cost of fossil fuels, Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations add to their competitive advantage, and allow market viability in leading jurisdictions today. The AIR TO FUELS™ process can deliver fuels that have an ultra-low life-cycle carbon intensity, or that are fully carbon neutral (depending on the energy source used to power the DAC component of the process).

About A2F

$1.00 /L = $3.79/gal, assuming USD.

$3.79 + $5.33 = $9.12/gal

That’s just the production cost.  It doesn’t include profits that would be required to repay the investors, who are probably expecting at least an 8% ROI…

CE’s investors now include: Bill Gates, Murray Edwards, BHP, Chevron Technology Ventures, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, LLC, Bethel Lands Corporation Ltd, Carbon Order, First Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Rusheen Capital Management, LLC, Starlight Ventures, Thomvest Asset Management (an affiliate of Peter J. Thomson), the Benjamin Family, the Hodgkinson Family, and the Hutchison Family. Additionally, all of CE’s Board, management and many of CE’s staff have personally invested into the company as part of this round.

Carbon Engineering concludes USD$68 million private investment round and proceeds with commercialization of carbon dioxide removal technology

This sort of thing only makes sense in a world in which crude oil is around $250/bbl or there is a $1,000/ton carbon tax.  CE’s investors are true believers that oil will either become very expensive in the near future or that our government will seek to destroy our economy in the near future… Or they are just hedging against such nightmares.

Sea Level Comment

October 9, 2019

To illustrate the irrelevance of sea level rise, I devised a little topographic exercise using NOAA tides & sea level trends and a USGS topographic map of the Jacksonville FL quadrangle.  There are two NOAA sea level stations in this quadrangle: Fernandina Beach and Mayport.  I chose Fernandina Beach because the record goes back to 1897, Mayport only goes back to 1930.

Here is the sea level trend and the height of a 10′ (3m) storm surge projected to 2140…

Here’s the same plot with the tidal range overlaid…

From: A geological perspective on sea level and storm surges.

Less than 1′ of sea level rise over the next 80 years requires very little in the way of preparation, unless your house is already flooding at high tide and there isn’t enough melt-able ice on Earth to support much more than 1′ of sea level rise over the next 80 years.

This sort of sea level rise…

Requires this sort of ice melt…

RCP8.5 doesn’t even deliver that much ice melt… And RCP8.5 is bad science fiction.

Whether measuring the temperature in the atmosphere…

Or at airports…

The worst case scenario is between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5…

 

Snappy Answers to Stupid Comments

October 3, 2019

The earliest evidence of life comes from biogenic carbon signatures[2][3] and stromatolite fossils[15] discovered in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks from western Greenland. In 2015, possible “remains of biotic life” were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia.[16][17] In March 2017, putative evidence of possibly the oldest forms of life on Earth was reported in the form of fossilized microorganisms discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, not long after the oceans formed 4.4 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[18][19]