Missing water

Climate Change issues should be posted under Politics and Social Issues because it is more political than scientific.

85% of the US is freezing at a time when we were told that we would never see snow again in the United States do to Climate Change. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that CO2 gases does hold heat. Today the claim is that warming weather is absolute proof of Climate Change and freezing cold weather is now also absolute proof of warming Climate Change.

The point I am trying to make is that the earth has a thermostat. And that thermostat is clouds. CC and the far left will tell you that clouds zero out and have so little effect on cooling the earth and that clouds are not a factor in Climate Change. And I know where they get that idea. It comes from the people doing the Climate models. It turns out that clouds are hard to calculate in terms of math. And the Climate models work in a situation that they get money whether or not they include clouds. So, the story has always been that clouds have zero affect. Of course, there were the scientists that claimed that clouds do have an effect that needs to be calculated to make the models work properly. Those scientists were quickly labeled deniers and got no research money. The left-wing public and democrats backed up the zero affect of clouds. Now three decades have been wasted with no models finished. And the reason given this time is that they must now research the affect of clouds on the weather.

The news, pushing stories about Climate Change is saying that the heat forms clouds and that is causing the extra cold weather we are having. That is correct. Climate Change can affect the weather by up to 3%. That’s not even one degree of change to this storm. But let’s not take away the small affect of Climate Change and give it the 3%.

Any way it is beyond the point of being funny anymore. The far-left science claiming the earth is so much hotter than normal. The ice is just about gone from the North Pole. This last summer was headlining heat breaking records across the country. We are having record breaking years of heat and warming of the earth each decade now.

With that said. No doubt there will be a data dumps coming to counter this claim with hundreds of scientific reports backing up the melting of ice and the warming of the earth.

The question is. Where is this water going? Using the Statue of Liberty as a gauge, water levels were supposed to be to the nose by now. This will be overlooked and just plain ignored by all these data dumps. Just the expansion of the oceans from the water warming is more than enough to cover the water rise of the oceans today. Which by the way is not even above the normal expected rise without Climate Change? The money chasing far left scientists’ new predictions are extremely less this decade, anywhere from 5 feet to 20 feet by 2100. Predictions by our level-headed scientists have the extremely worst-case scenario at 5 feet by 2100. But most likely will be in the 10-inch rise where Mother Nature would be at. With the best-case the sea level rise would be less than the rise that happened in the 20<sup>th</sup> century.

Maybe we need to file a theft report with the FBI. With all this melting of ice that the fake news has been talking about and the water not showing up in the oceans. And we have the history of climate cycles that proves the weather causes the oceans to rise and lower four hundred feet each cycle. It is understood that the earth warms, and the oceans levels rise. The earth cools and the oceans levels fall. Then it is obvious someone has been stealing our water. No doubt there is collusion between Trump and the Russians to steal the water. This must be an impeachable offence.

“85% of the US is freezing at a time when we were told that we would never see snow again in the United States do to Climate Change.”

Bullshit, just because some headlines screams it doesn’t mean a serious scientist said it.

“Those scientists were quickly labeled deniers and got no research money.”

Bullshit, Lindzen’s “Iris Effect” has been plenty studied, it just turns out not to be a real thing.



“The news, pushing stories about Climate Change is saying that the heat forms clouds and that is causing the extra cold weather we are having.”

A) if you want to talk climate science, talk climate science, not wild news headlines. B) NO! Clouds are not the cause of the extreme cold weather, blame the Polar Vortex, not clouds - basically our up-ge-fuk’k’der jet stream has shoved a mass of warmer mid-latitude air into the Arctic regions, thus forcing a huge mass of Arctic Air into mid-latitudes. A predicted side effect of global warming caused jet stream disruption.

Even Forbes knows the story: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/30/this-is-why-global-warming-is-responsible-for-freezing-temperatures-across-the-usa

“The question is. Where is this water going? Using the Statue of Liberty as a gauge, water levels were supposed to be to the nose by now.”

Bullshit yet again, the scientist who made such claim also included to mention centuries, but the rabid right wing deleted those important details. Not that we don’t have a big problem nonetheless.




The above poster seems to belong to the science by deception, omission and ridicule school of thought.

Here’s some more factual information for your consideration:

How the Antarctic Ice Sheet has changed from 1992-2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfgG8AtHnuU

Multi Meter Sea Level Rise, Antarctic Sea Ice & Ice Melt Acceleration - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooJiG9zHWKA

Perennial Arctic Sea Ice Decline 1984 – 2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIxciS1B9eo


1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000.

After the wettest winter in 248 years, the UK was hit with snowstorms last week. Last year, the UK’s climate authority predicted that this winter would be drier than usual, with only a 15 percent chance of being wet. They were very wrong.

2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland. An article from the UK’s Guardian in 2004 quoted scientists and environmentalists predicting the demise of Scotland’s winter sports industry, including more remarks from Dr. David Viner, who had already predicted the end of snow in Britain.

“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” said Dr. Viner. “It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”

“Adam Watson, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Banchory, Aberdeenshire, believes the industry has no more than 20 years left,” the Guardian reported.

Viner and Watson must have been surprised to see the BBC report that Scottish mountains may be their snowiest since 1945.

3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.

Gore was echoing the predictions made by American scientist Wieslaw Maslowsk in 2007, who said that “you can argue that may be our projection of [an ice-free Arctic by 2013] is already too conservative.”

But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.

4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall. In March 2013, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicted that warmer springs would mean declines in snow cover.

“Warmer, earlier springs are a clear signal of a changing climate,” the group said. “March temperatures have grown 2.1 degrees (F) hotter, on average, in the United States since reliable record-keeping began in 1880s. Similarly, the first leaves have started appearing on plants several days earlier than they used to across the country.”

But the record levels of snowfall to hit this year may have caught UCS off guard. On Monday, the U.S. east coast was hit with a massive snowstorm that stretched for 1,300 miles and those in the Baltimore-D.C. area were hit with a 141-year record cold of 4 degrees Fahrenheit on Tuesday morning.

“Many places tied or broke record lows all over the Eastern half of the U.S.,” reported CBS Baltimore.

5.) The end of skiing. Ski towns across the country were worried about their prospects when temperatures temporarily rose up into 50s and 60s in early February. Scientists were fanning the flames by predicting that winter towns could see more hardships ahead due to global warming.

“There’s going to be good years and there’s going to be god-awful years,” said Terry Root, senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “The globe is warming so rapidly, and variability is increasing so much – both of those things together, I’m glad I don’t have stock in ski areas.”

But this year has not been all that bad for winter towns. The town of Loveland, Colorado got more than 300 inches of snow this winter, reports CBS Denver, adding that with “snow continuing to pile up at ski areas many are putting this winter in their top 10.” For Loveland, 300 inches is still below normal, but a far cry from the end of snowy winters.

(H/T Steven Goddard)

Goddard laid out a good example of what has happened with the Climate Change science understanding that has been given to the public. It is now understood by many that governments were using Climate Change to promote globalization.

The question becomes, how much data was use for globalization and how many generations will it take to clean up the mess and get back to basic science? Just lookup Georgetown Texas and follow the history of the green movement that took place.


Bullshit, just because some headlines screams it doesn’t mean a serious scientist said it.

What about the Juliana vs. USA? This is the case of 11 and 12-year-old children suing the government for not stopping Climate Change. It is in the U.S. Supreme Courts right now. Somehow those children missed the data you posted, and they are scared the earth is coming to an end. Should we worry? After all we have the data from the serious scientist. That is, unless it goes to the ninth district where science does not win over far left views. Oh, wait, it is going to the ninth district.

Bullshit, Lindzen’s “Iris Effect” has been plenty studied, it just turns out not to be a real thing.

Yet, read the books that talks about the Climate Change fraud. A common factor in all the books was the funneling of the tax dollars to offset the balance of science.

A personal item I experienced about 20 years ago. I thought it would be fun and I would be helping climate change in a Green movement way by installing wind generators in the newly wind certified areas of California. California was giving a lot of tax breaks for wind generating systems. California was spending a lot of tax dollars to promote wind generating. Problem was I could not make the numbers work that California was using on the costs of wind generating. California was committing fraud on their citizens for political reasons.

Today there are very few wind generators being use by private parties. The first ones to use them got the word out that they were a lot more expensive than staying on the grid.

We need to get our Federal and state houses in order. If not, it would be better for the people if the industry controlled the science and not the government.

Interior: Sea level rise will leave Statue of Liberty ‘underwater’

by Kyle Feldscher


How Do You Save the Statue of Liberty From Drowning?

Lady Liberty is a towering symbol of our national vulnerability to the changing planet. How do you save a 225-ton statue standing on a small island in New York Harbor from rising tides? -Bloomberg






Gore, you’ll remember, famously said, the entire North Polarized cap will disappear by 2013.

Great case in point. Contrarian minded folks are dependent on misrepresentations and making it up as they go along. I’ll take real experts any day.


4. The Statue of Liberty as we know it. One of the most recognizable statues in the world could someday be underwater.Sea-level rise and an increase in storm surges are putting the Statue of Liberty at risk – in 2012, Hurricane Sandy inundated the statue’s island in water, causing it to close for nearly eight months of repairs.

The Statue of Liberty isn’t alone in the the threat of sea-level rise. A 2015 National Park Service study found that 118 parks are vulnerable to sea-level rise from climbing global temperatures. These places – like Florida’s Everglades National Park and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina – are popular for their unique ecosystems and vibrant recreational opportunities.


listen to what they said at 0:25: “the loss of the landmarks will probably take 2,000 years.”

Your second YouTube was just stupid graphics manipulation and heavy metal.

Find that alleged quote by Gore, lets listen to it in context.

Regarding the Arctic, here’s what you are blind to:

North Pole surges above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/02/26/north-pole-surges-above-freezing-in-the-dead-of-winter-stunning-scientists Jason Samenow | February 26, 2018</div>
The sun won’t rise at the North Pole until March 20, and it’s normally close to the coldest time of year, but an extraordinary and possibly historic thaw swelled over the tip of the planet this weekend. Analyses show that the temperature warmed to the melting point as an enormous storm pumped an intense pulse of heat through the Greenland Sea.

Temperatures may have soared as high as 35 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) at the pole, according to the U.S. Global Forecast System model. While there are no direct measurements of temperature there, Zack Labe, a climate scientist working on his PhD at the University of California at Irvine, confirmed that several independent analyses showed “it was very close to freezing,” which is more than 50 degrees (30 degrees Celsius) above normal.

Anybody who denies the reality of man made global warming and that it is an immense, terrifying and imminent threat should…er…come a cropper.

Butter, thanks for posting. I would be interested to get your views in more details of the terrifying and imminent threats of Climate Change from your understanding and viewpoints. And what kind of time period are we looking at that this could happen in?

Okey dokey. If decisive action is not taken now the trigger will have been pulled, although it will not strike the victim until an eye-blink later. This timescale I estimate is an appropriate analogy given the age of the earth and the worst case scenario of polar icecaps melting fully due to apathetic head in the sand thinking continuing on large. Vast swathes of every continent will be underwater if this happens as well as a host of weather related negative events. It’s a difficult process to reign in our pollution and we’re already facing a 2C rise, which will be very damaging, whatever we do, say many scientists, because we’ve all been sitting on our hands for the last few decades, by in large. I’m really not interested in arguing the toss about this stuff with any AGW denialists or apathetic types so don’t expect a reply if anybody’s coming with that. I leave you with a quote from Sir David Attenborough, described by Richard Dawkins (how very fitting here, of all places) as being Britain’s (or was it the world’s…memory fail) most respected man, in The God Delusion:

“Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” – Sir David Attenborough December 2018

CC, I would like you to give me your views and understanding of what you think the earth’s Global Warming weather should be like today in the Lag of the intermediate cycle without Climate Change.

Butter, thanks for the posting. By the way, I am not a denialist. I am a realist. And back in the 60’s and early 70’s the climate scientists had me nervous about the Ice Age that was happening. And they predicted that in just a few years Hudson Bay would be frozen solid.

I backed the IPCC in building climate models. So far, the climate science is based mostly on the Antarctica ice cores and tree rings. The IPCC has been to political driven and operates with scientists making predictions without basic data points or datum lines. Which is the basis for any science. The question that needs to be answered today is, does the earth have a natural thermometer? And that thermometer being the clouds.

I have been totally disillusioned with the science of the IPCC. I now follow scientist Judith Curry and Climate Etc. where the political aspects are kept out of the science.

As far as the trigger being pulled. We reached that point a couple years ago. The IPCC just reset the numbers. How in the hell was that possible?

Butter, let me clarify this Missing Water debate posting. It is posted under the Politics and Social Issues section because I wanted to bring out the political issues that are taking place in this science. The political aspects seem to be bigger than the scientific aspects of climate change. I don’t like or agree with the much of the political aspects and wish it was not part of or involved until the science part is done and understood. Science should just be the facts. Once the facts are established then the political actions should engage. The cart in front of the horse comes to mind.

Butter, you made a point for me. Sir David Attenborough is pushing Globalization. And he is using Climate Change to promote Globalization.

Ah yes, an AGW “realist” and Trump exponent. How very cogent.

Yes, I believe AGW is a factor. But not the driving factor of GW. That would be the cycles of the sun and earth. I have no problem with AGW and Climate Change. What is that? Somewhere between 1 and 3% of GW? Given the GSM cycles at the peak of the intermediate cycle. We lucked out by being as much as 2% cooler than some of the past intermediate cycles.

And yes, thank god for Trump for moving Climate Change away from the political deceit and heading back in the direction of science.

99.9% of scientists wrong, MikeYohe and a handful of cherry picked Trump apologists right. I think I might be beginning to understand why it’s so quiet in here if toxicity come batshit lunacy of this level is extant.

You have been drinking the left’s kool-aid. What are the 99.9% of scientists claiming that I am wrong about? The statement is so far from being true in any way that it is nothing more than a total lie. What am I saying they are wrong about? The second thing out of two item posted that you are wrong about is being a Trump apologists. My views of using science for Climate Change facts has not changed. And this was long before Trump even thought of running for office. So your looking for a far-left click to back each other up on ranting racial slurs, putting people down, labeling people and promoting a communist government. You go ahead with your thinking that you are beginning to understand that everyone operates in a world where everything is a game. I am way above being bothered by a far-left enthusiast.

If you want to debate in generalities rather than particulars for this debate. I am fine with that too. That is why I posted in Politics and Social Issues section. And you would be an excellence foe for a debate because you are already displaying controverting transcendence of the facts and moved the debate from scientific facts to a political and social level. Thanks By the way, I really doubt that I can win a social debate of this type, this is one item the far-left thrives on. So, let’s see what Climate Change is based upon, social aspects or science.

The point being. What if your profession is that of a climate scientist. Would your political and social views affect your science reporting. Would you be able to separate the two?

I Love Butter, I’m starting to like you.