“In the Shore Acres neighborhood of St. Petersburg, rising water has become a constant threat. Many residents cannot afford to elevate their homes or move.”
Patricia Mazzei, reporting from St. Petersburg, Florida, for the New York Times, writes a heart-rending story about the poor-rich-people living in a “Paradise”, in a neighborhood with an average home value of $843,000, where most of the homes have boats and yachts tied to the dock in their convenient backyard canal.
Sometimes, especially when Gulf hurricanes hit Florida’s west coast, this neighborhood floods. In some parts of the neighborhood, high tide flooding of some streets and backyards occurs.
This is almost entirely a pictorial news brief. Readers can view just these four images and discuss the cause of the grief of these poor rich people:
“Preliminary results reveal that subsidence occurs in localized patches (< 0.02 km2) with magnitude of up to 3 mm yr−1, in urban areas built on reclaimed marshland. These results suggest that contribution of local land subsidence affect only small areas along the southeast Florida coast, but in those areas coastal flooding hazard is significantly higher compared to non-subsiding areas.” — Land subsidence contribution to coastal flooding hazard in southeast Florida Wdowinski et al. (2020)
“Mr. Batdorf, a real estate broker, said people were still buying in the neighborhood, even if only to demolish and rebuild. He likened the situation to when Tropical Storm Josephine flooded Shore Acres in 1996. Mr. Batdorf walked through knee-deep water back then to make sure a house his clients wanted had not flooded. The flooding did not detract the buyers. …. “I wrote the contract that day, in the water,” he said. “People love living here. It’s the convenience of where it is. It’s paradise.” — NY Times
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Florida is famous for its vices and one of them, just to pick one out of the oh-so-many, is Miami’s Vice. Untold thousands of homes are built along the coasts of Florida within one to three feet of average high tide, with canals to bring the sea close to the homes – as in ‘just there, across the backyard’.
Global Sea Levels, are believed to be rising, on average, at a rate of about 1 foot (0.3 meters) per century as the Earth slowly warms up a bit out of the Little Ice Age, which ended sometime between 1750 and 1850 (opinions vary). There is every reason to believe that the sea will continue to rise, at that rate, maybe a tiny bit faster, for the foreseeable future, at least until the Earth begins to cool once more.
The rich and foolish continue to build homes and entire cities in places which they must know are in harm’s way – in threat of damage and destruction from the sea and its storms, which are driven by the incredibly powerful chaotic interactive processes of the atmosphere and the oceans.
Governor DeSantis: A Beacon of Rational Policy Against Ideological Zealotry
Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida has once again demonstrated his unwavering commitment to practical and rational governance by signing into law a series of bills designed to counter the prevailing tide of ideological narratives that have infiltrated energy policy and economic investments. This legislative action is a refreshing departure from the often dogmatic approaches seen in other states, bringing a much-needed focus on practicality and economic sense.
At the core of these legislative measures is a clear-eyed rejection of radical climate agenda directives. The new laws place a greater emphasis on nuclear energy and natural gas, which are both reliable and cost-effective sources of energy. DeSantis has consistently championed policies that prioritize the economic well-being of Floridians, and this move underscores his dedication to maintaining affordable energy prices and enhancing energy security.
“The legislation I signed today [will] keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state,” the governor said. “We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots”.
By focusing on nuclear energy, which has a proven track record of safety and efficiency, and expanding natural gas resources, Florida is set to benefit from a more stable and sustainable energy infrastructure. This pragmatic approach contrasts sharply with the impracticalities of over-reliance on intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar.
Banning Investments with Adversary Links
One of the standout elements of the new legislation is the prohibition of state holdings in companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party and those utilizing forced labor. This move is a strategic and ethical decision that aligns with national security interests and human rights standards. The financial entanglement with adversarial nations and unethical practices is a concern that has often been overlooked in the rush to globalize investments.
“The legislation also encourages the expansion of natural gas resources throughout the state”.
The legislative package includes HB 7071, which prevents the State Board Administration from accepting direct holdings of Chinese companies on behalf of the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund. Additionally, a thorough review of existing investments will ensure that Floridian funds are not inadvertently supporting adversary nations or unethical labor practices.
Enhancing Energy Policy and Economic Focus
The emphasis on economic evaluation and technical feasibility in energy policy is a hallmark of Governor DeSantis’s administration. The new laws mandate a comprehensive study of nuclear power technologies, ensuring that Florida’s energy future is not only secure but also economically viable.
“The proposal rescinds a phrase directing the state to address ‘the potential of global climate change.’ The bill also requires the state to study and evaluate the potential technical and economic advantages of using nuclear power technologies”.
By stripping away directives that were more ideological than practical, the state can now focus on real-world solutions that offer tangible benefits. This approach will likely serve as a model for other states grappling with the balance between environmental stewardship and economic vitality.
The legislation I signed today—HB 1645, HB 7071, and HB 1331—will keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state.
We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots.
Governor DeSantis’s decisive actions are a testament to his commitment to protecting Florida’s interests against both ideological and foreign threats. The inclusion of provisions to ban state contracts with companies involved in forced labor further highlights his administration’s stance on maintaining ethical and secure economic practices.
“The bill requires the Department of Management Services to create and maintain a forced labor vendor list of companies that have been disqualified from public contracting for 365 days and to publish an updated version of the list on a quarterly basis”.
This initiative not only ensures that state funds are used responsibly but also sends a strong message about Florida’s ethical standards in business operations.
Conclusion
Governor Ron DeSantis’s recent legislative measures are a bold affirmation of rational policy-making in an era often dominated by ideological extremes. By focusing on reliable energy sources, ethical investments, and practical governance, DeSantis is leading Florida towards a more stable and prosperous future. These laws are not just a win for Floridians but a beacon for other states to follow in crafting policies that prioritize common sense over ideology.
An article in Inside Climate News (ICN) reports on a proposed change in Florida’s state code to remove climate change as a consideration for policy issues, now in the hands of Gov. Ron DeSantis. Based on who ICN interviewed for the story and what they said, the story implies that the bill is putting Floridians at risk by ignoring climate change. This is false. Because climate change is not exacerbating hazards in Florida, but it is threatening the state’s energy security, the bill before DeSantis will benefit Florida and merits final approval.
The article begins:
Addressing the human-caused emissions warming the global climate and contributing to impacts here like hotter temperatures, rising seas, and more damaging hurricanes could no longer be part of Florida’s energy policy, under legislation before Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The measure, approved earlier this spring by the Republican-controlled legislature, would erase several instances of the words “climate change” from the state code and restructure Florida’s fossil fuel-based energy policy around reducing reliance on foreign sources and strengthening the energy infrastructure against “natural and manmade threats.”
…
The legislation now before DeSantis would repeal state grant programs encouraging energy efficiency and renewable energy and ban offshore wind facilities within a mile of the coastlines, none of which currently exist. The measure also would require the Public Service Commission to assess the security and resiliency of the electric grid and natural gas facilities against physical and cyber threats. Rep. Rick Roth (R-West Palm Beach), one of the bill’s sponsors, characterized climate change as a “made-up problem.”
Florida’s Legislature is correct in removing this language in the state code because it is misleading and unnecessary. Many of the so-called “climate threats” discussed in the ICN article, are actually short-term weather and not long-term climate events, and the claimed harm that ICN is linking to climate change is refuted by real-world data.
Most notable in the threat list are hurricanes. For example, after Category 5 Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in late August 2005, scientists and pundits alike began claiming that sort of devastation was the “new normal” and that hurricane frequency and intensities were only going to get worse. Climate model projections were cited as “proof” for such claims. Former Vice-President Al Gore exploited the Katrina disaster in a call for climate action.
Yet, after Katrina, the United States entered a hurricane drought. Between October 24, 2005 and August 17, 2017, a 4,323-day (142-month, 12-year) period, the United States entered its longest recorded period of no major hurricane of category three or higher making landfall within the country. Climate models failed to simulate the hurricane drought. Florida was spared the so-called “climate threat” from hurricanes.
Among the other supposed “climate threats” facing Florida, according to ICN, are sea level rise, coastal flooding, and increased temperature in cities.
Florida’s “sea level rise” is actually more attributable to subsidence rather than in a climate change induced increase in rates of rise. This fact is clearly examined in the scientific paper “Land subsidence contribution to coastal flooding hazard in southeast Florida,” published in Proceedings of IAHS in 2020. The paper clearly states:
Preliminary results reveal that subsidence occurs in localized patches (< 0.02 km2) with magnitude of up to 3 mm yr−1, in urban areas built on reclaimed marshland. These results suggest that contribution of local land subsidence affect[s] only small areas along the southeast Florida coast, but in those areas coastal flooding hazard is significantly higher compared to non-subsiding areas.
Subsidence is also driven by freshwater withdrawals from the region’s groundwater reservoirs to satisfy the Miami metro area’s growing population. As discussed in numerous previous Climate Realism articles, here and here, for example, sea level rise in Florida and beyond is not increasingly rapidly and has more to do with subsidence and land management than climate change induced rise.
Coastal flooding isn’t even a recognized climate threat by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which says it has found no indication that climate change is causing increased coastal flooding, as is shown in Table 12.12 | on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) in time periods, shows no correlation. The color corresponds to the confidence of the region with the highest confidence: white colors indicate where evidence of a climate change signal is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal. The section is highlighted in yellow. Neither sea-level nor coastal flooding has been an observed element of climate change.
Even in 2050 and 2100 the IPCC forecasts no coastal flooding attributable to climate change.
Temperatures in Florida are in rising on average, but a cursory examination of where it is happening reveals a clear pattern. An increase in overnight low temperatures is a clear indicator of an increased Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). Florida’s population has doubled from about 10 million in 1990 to over 20 million now. This more than doubling of the state’s population is reflected clearly in UHI data compiled by Dr. Roy Spencer as seen in the graph below. Note the huge temperature effects from development in Florida’s fastest growing cities.
Climate change isn’t selective about the where of temperature increases, but UHI is.
In short, DeSantis is right to “shrug off” the climate hype and focus instead on the real problems facing Florida. Doing so might reduce the chances of sea water incursion and subsidence, and minimize damage done by hurricanes undoubtedly in store for the state in the future. Ending fossil fuel use in the vain quest to control the climate will do neither.
We commend the Florida legislature for recognizing that real-world data does not support climate alarmism in Florida and believe the law currently before DeSantis puts Florida on the right track to improved energy security and sound regulatory policies with regards to real environmental and economic threats facing Florida.
“Global elites want to control our behavior and push a diet of petri dish meat and bugs on Americans. Florida is saying no. I was proud to sign SB 1084 to keep lab-grown meat out of Florida and prioritize our farmers and ranchers over the agenda of elites and the World Economic Forum.” — Governor Ron DeSantis
In Episode 433 of District of Conservation, Gabriella is recording from POMA Annual Meeting in South Carolina. She dishes on her personal best largemouth bass catch and shares two news updates regarding the Biden NEPA rule and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis banning lab-grown meat. Tune in to learn more!
In Episode 445 of District of Conservation, Gabriella catches up with Roy Hill – formerly of Brownells and now with Swanson Russell. Roy is a longtime firearms industry fixture and is active with Special Operations Wounded Warriors outside of his day job. Tune in to learn more about SOWW and Roy's involvement.
SHOW NOTES
Swanson Russell
Connect with Roy Hill
SOWW
SOWW Retreats
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/district-of-conservation/support
A recent article in the South Florida Sun Sentinel (SFSS) newspaper, titled “Florida in 50 years: Study says land conservation can buffer destructive force of climate change,” makes some catastrophic claims about what Florida’s climate will be like in 50 years. The article relies heavily on climate model projections, that are undermined by real world evidence and by the fact that the climate models in question have been shown to create “implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”
As outlined in Climate at A Glance: Climate Model Fallibility peer reviewed science has shown that climate forecasts like the one cited by the SFSS have no basis in reality because comparisons of actual measured atmospheric temperature data to model forecasts show up to a 200% discrepancy between model temperature outputs and observed temperatures.
Because the temperature forecasts are wildly implausible, the claimed disastrous impacts that are forecast to result from those unbelievably high temperatures also lack credibility.
The article starts off by asserting as a fact that, “Climate change is making temperatures and sea levels rise.”
It is important to note that average temperatures really didn’t start to significantly increase until around 1990, not coincidentally as the state’s population began to rise rapidly. Plus, average temperatures are just half of the picture. If you look at NOAA’s minimum temperatures for Florida, it is easy to see that it makes up the bulk of the increase in average temperatures since 1990:
Concerning the SFSS’s sea level rise claims, Miami is often used as an example of supposed sea level rise due to occasional street flooding there. Miami’s real problem isn’t rising seas as much as land subsidence. Much of Miami was built on reclaimed swamp land, and then built up with modern infrastructure. That extra weight causes a sinking of the land, known as subsidence, allowing seawater to seep in when the surfaces sink to near sea-level. It also means that during strong rainfall events, and hurricane storm surge, areas that have subsided don’t drain as they did years before.
Preliminary results reveal that subsidence occurs in localized patches (< 0.02 km2) with magnitude of up to 3 mm yr−1, in urban areas built on reclaimed marshland. These results suggest that contribution of local land subsidence affect[s] only small areas along the southeast Florida coast, but in those areas coastal flooding hazard is significantly higher compared to non-subsiding areas.
Subsidence is also driven by freshwater withdrawals from the region’s groundwater reservoirs to satisfy the Miami metro area’s growing population.
Clearly, sea level rise in Florida has more to do with subsidence and land management than climate change induced rise. Plus, Miami’s flat terrain, just a few feet above sea level, lacks natural drainage routes for rainwater to flow away from urban areas.
As discussed in numerous Climate Realism articles, here and here, for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever seas are rising at an usually rapid rate. As shown in Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise, there is approximately the same pace of sea-level rise today that has occurred since at least the mid-1800s, disproving claims of recent climate change worsening it.
SFSS goes on to outline a trifecta of additional climate threats, saying:
There are three main climate change threats in Florida, said Polsky: More intense rain events, which leads to greater flooding; more coastal flooding — both from storm surge and high tides; and more heat and wildfire risk.
As for coastal flooding, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows no indication that climate change is causing increased coastal flooding, as is show in Table 12.12 | on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) in time periods, shows no correlation. The color corresponds to the confidence of the region with the highest confidence: white colors indicate where evidence of a climate change signal is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal. The section is highlighted in yellow. Neither sea-level nor coastal flooding has been an observed element of climate change.
Even in 2050 and 2100 the IPCC does not forecast any climate change impact on coastal flooding. Also, the possible predicted effect on sea level rise that the IPCC suggests might occur in 2050 and beyond stems from the organization’s use of the RCP8.5 scenario “high emissions” scenario that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and many climate scientists have by now explicitly disavowed, as being wildly implausible if not impossible. Climate Realism has discussed problems with the RCP8.5 scenario repeatedly, here and here, for example.
As for SFSS’s wildfire claims, while Florida had a single bad year in 2017 due to warmer local weather conditions, lightning, and arsonists, there is no overall upwards trend in the number of wildfires for the state over the last decade:
According to a summary by Alchera, which produced the Florida wildfires graph above, climate change is not a factor:
Florida’s unique combination of flat terrain, abundant vegetation, and frequent lightning strikes makes the state prone to wildfires. The flat landscape allows fires to spread quickly, while the dense vegetation provides ample fuel for them to grow in intensity. Lightning strikes, particularly during the stormy summer months, can ignite dry vegetation and lead to rapidly spreading wildfires. Human activities, such as arson, debris burning, and equipment use, are also significant factors in causing wildfires in Florida.
The SFSS story claiming climate change is causing rapidly rising temperatures and increased flooding and wildfires in Florida has no basis in fact. Rather than presenting news, the SFSS’s story is consistent with a pattern Climate Realism has exposed time and again hyping the dogmatic narrative that climate change is causing virtually everything bad. Almost daily, climate alarmists and the media are painting a dire future due to climate change, even when the facts refute their claims. Such stories may make for good disaster fiction, but they are not fact-based news reporting, and thus are not worthy of being published by a supposedly journalistic enterprise.
Writing for the Florida Phoenix (The Phoenix), a “progressive” paper from Tallahassee Florida, environmental “journalist,” Craig Pittman mocks warnings from power grid operators who say shutting down coal and other fossil fuel power plants represents a danger to the U.S. power grid, and cites a litany of alleged climate change impacts as justification for his position. Data shows that the rapid-fire climate crisis assertions Pittman makes are false. By contrast, the looming threat of power grid destabilization, which Pittman dismisses, is real and must be taken seriously.
The article, “Amid record heat, Florida agencies give EPA climate change rules a cold shoulder,” is riddled with errors. So many, in fact, that to attempt to correct each one individually would make this Climate Realism post far longer than we typically write. Suffice it to say, Climate Realism has directly refuted many of the claims Pittman made in this article already in other posts. He hits on almost every single topic we’ve ever covered in his long, misinformed diatribe.
First, Pittman is very alarmed by the hot Florida summer, giving glib examples of what effects the summer has had, including hot beach sand and prison inmates being allowed to wear shorts. He also speaks about ocean temperatures being hotter than usual.
Yet, contrary to repeated claims that near shore ocean temperatures are boiling, they are not, While warmer than average this year, regardless of what a single buoy reading in an isolated, shallow bay recorded, the oceans aren’t turning to steam. Nor is warm water “boiling our coral reefs to death” as Pittman claims. Coral bleaching is not coral death, and while marine “heat waves” can lead to the colonizing algae temporarily abandoning corals, it is cold water conditions that kills them. This is why most coral reefs are found in hotter equatorial waters.
Besides his revealed lack of knowledge about existing weather data, the most egregious claims in the article stem from Pittman’s complete dismissal of concerns about the power grid failing, due to the premature closure of coal and potentially natural gas fueled power plants. Regarding the EPA’s proposed power plant rule Pittman writes, “[u]nfortunately, last year the robe-wearing panhandlers on the U.S. Supreme Court, no doubt obeying what their donors told them to do, ruled that the Clean Air Act that empowered the agency to regulate smog, soot, and acid rain didn’t cover carbon emissions.” He goes on to say that the Supreme Court’s ruling is why the EPA had to allow utilities to “choose how to stop cooking the planet.”
In a letter sent last week, [Florida] DEP Secretary Shawn “I Keep My Thermostat Set Just Above Freezing” Hamilton told the EPA that its rule is bad. Why? Because it “places the reliability, affordability, and capacity of the nation’s energy supply at risk.”
Yes, we must have reliable electricity to run our A/C units 24/7 when the weather outside is this hot. That’s the Florida way, no matter how high our skyrocketing utility bills may climb.
Pittman is dangerously incorrect. His argument does not make much sense. Even many climate alarmists acknowledge that air conditioning does indeed help people survive “dangerous heat.” In addition, it is puzzling why Pittman scoffs at the idea that the electric grid may become unstable due to baseload power being shut off because of EPA edicts.
This is especially true considering the warnings that have been put out not only by utility companies, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) itself.
In the Climate Realism post “Top U.S. Grid Official Says Fossil Fuel Power Plant Closures Could Have ‘Catastrophic Consequences,’” Nick Pope describes recent warnings from the government’s top energy regulator. FERC Commissioner Mark Christie told the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “I think we’re heading for potentially very dire consequences, potentially catastrophic consequences in the United States in terms of the reliability of our grid, and I think that the basic reason is that we’re facing a shortfall of power supply[.]”
Christie went on to explain that it’s not that we’re not adding enough wind and solar, but “[t]he problem is the subtraction of coal and gas and other dispatchable resources which are the ones we need during this transition to keep the lights on.”
Even if an energy “transition” is needed or desirable, it would still be unwise to shut down power plants that provide consistent energy to the grid before suitable replacements are up and running. Pittman even mockingly disparages the idea that a growing Florida population will require more energy.
The reality is that no amount of wind or solar will prevent power outages; no matter how many wind turbines you have, if the wind stops blowing (or blows too much), their electricity output is zero. No matter how many solar panels you have, if the sun is not shining, their output is zero.
Grid-scale nuclear and geothermal can provide more reliable energy, but they are not the ultimate saviors of the grid on their own either. Nuclear typically is either all-on or all-off, and thus usually doesn’t have the ability to adapt quickly to sudden changes in electricity demand the way coal or natural gas can, although recent research is attempting to overcome that barrier. Geothermal, as discussed in Energy at a Glance: Geothermal Power Economics and Geothermal Power and the Environment, is highly dependent on location if it is used for grid-scale electricity generation.
Pittman ends his execrable screed in a tirade against PragerU videos being shown in Florida schools, and by listing yet more climate alarmist talking points which have been thoroughly debunked by available data, like the idea that hurricanes are intensifying. They aren’t, but Pittman is ignoring or is ignorant of this truth.
The entire Florida Phoenix article is nothing more than opinionated, biased, misinformed, shameful rant, with little or no reference to actual data, to lend it the legitimacy of being thought of as a news story. The Phoenix should be embarrassed by the lack of journalistic integrity or critical thinking on the part of Pittman. Readers should be armed with the knowledge of the looming threats to the power grid, not sold, as Pittman put it, “a line of fertilizer.”
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.
While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
Last week, the BBC reported that seawater along the tip of Florida had exceeded “hot tub” temperatures of 37.8°C (100°F) in recent days, “making it potentially the hottest ever measured”. The Guardian was in fine alarmist form noting that the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water. Similar hysteria was to be found across most of the mainstream media. Alas, curiously missing from all this excitable coverage was a note that just 48 hours later the temperature plummeted to around 85°F.
The reading was taken from a buoy in Manatee Bay which is managed by the Everglades National Park, and located north of Key Largo. The upper left graph below shows that the temperature moved between 90-101°F on consecutive days, then fell away rapidly to around 85°F.
Examining the ‘record’ on the climate site Watts Up With That?, the former ecology lecturer Jim Steele observed that water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2. Steele noted that the Manatee Bay buoy measuring the water temperature was in a small embayment surrounded by landform and this forms a natural hot tub. Low winds and a high pressure system further helped heat the bay, while muddy waters darkened the water enhancing solar heating.
Steele noted that the science of solar ponds has shown that when fresh water overlayed saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can be as much as 60°F hotter than the surface at depths between five and 10 feet.
To maintain the “crisis hoax”, Steele suggests it’s also important to ignore conflicting data. Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air and some both. Just 56 miles to the south-west of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days, as shown in the lower left graph (above), which then cooled to 86°F. Manatee Bay lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph) which then cooled to the low 80°Fs, even dipping to 76°F. “These air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented,” said Steele.
Jim Steele has a lifetime’s experience in working for environmental education projects. For 25 years he ran the Sierra Nevada Field Campus for San Francisco State University. As part of one monitoring project, he studied the effect of regional climate change on bird populations in the Sierra Nevada.
Mainstream media are now clearly in the grip of a climate catastrophisation mania where activists scour the world for any unusual weather event or recording. Normal reporting standards seem to have been abandoned in the rush to scare populations to comply with the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Top level politicians encourage widespread panic with Al Gore ranting about “boiling oceans”, while a deranged Antonio Guterres claimed earlier this week that we live in an age of “global boiling”. At a stroke, the UN Secretary General seems to have retired the Guardian’s ‘Global Heating’ invention. Last year’s Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser says the climate narrative has corrupted his beloved science. Meanwhile, global boiling is promoted as global surface temperatures are retrospectively adjusted upwards by state-funded bodies, while the accurate satellite record shows a near nine-year pause. In the U.K., the Met Office happily uses corrupted station temperature data that the World Meteorology Organisation states has a error estimate of up to 2°C. The British weather service still seems inordinately proud of its 60-second U.K. heat record last year, despite evidence that three Typhoon jets were landing around the time on the runway next to the measuring devise at RAF Coningsby.
On Wednesday, the BBC’s Georgina Rannard wrote a story asking if the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025. This is pure Day After Tomorrow sci-fi territory, promoting fears of catastrophic cooling in the northern hemisphere, with widespread impacts across the planet. Again the story was all over the mainstream media with USA Today reporting the Atlantic Ocean currents could soon collapse, adding, “how you may endure dramatic weather changes”.
The story originated from a recently published scientific paper and was pure clickbait for impressionable activists. The claims are based on limited observation evidence producing computer model projections. The authors state “with high confidence” that the change will occur between 2025-2095. However, the paper does contain this massive caveat, which went unreported in any of the media coverage: this prediction is only valid “under the assumption that the model is approximately correct, and we of course, cannot rule out that other mechanisms are at play, and thus, the uncertainty is larger”.
Needless to say, the story went around the world and was reported in blazing headlines. However, it seems eyebrows are starting to be raised about this sort of guff, even in alarmist circles. The climate alarmist’s climate alarmist is Professor Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann of Penn University, but rerunning the Day After Tomorrow script was not wholly to his taste. According to USA Today, he said: “I’m not sure the authors bring much to the table other than a fancy statistical method. History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods; sometimes they’re too fancy for their own good.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
The formula is simple: Take an extreme temperature limited to a period of a few days from only one extremely tiny location, then encourage click-bait media to push the narrative that it represents the climate crisis caused by CO2 and threatening the whole earth.
A buoy in Manatee Bay managed by the Everglades National Park, is located north of Key Largo and indicated by the 2 red arrows in illustrations below. The official buoy data (upper left graph) shows water temperatures bounced between ~90°F and ~101 on consecutive two days then plummeted to 85-86°F over the following days! Clearly those water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2.
Manatee-Bay-record-temperature
Nonetheless, the PBS News Hour pushed notorious alarmist-journalist Seth Borenstein’s report pushing the hoax with the title South Florida water temperature hits triple digits, may have set world record for warmest seawater. And New York Times pushes, “101°F in the Ocean Off Florida: Was It a World Record?”
Another scientist, despite attempting to sound an alarm, was unintentionally quite perceptive saying, “If you climbed in the water there, I’m pretty darn sure it would have felt like you’re in a hot tub.” Indeed, the science of solar ponds has shown when freshwater overlays saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can rise by as much as 60°F degrees higher than the surface at depths between 5 and 10 feet.
Also notice the Manatee Bay buoy measuring water temperatures at a 5-foot depth is located in a small embayment surrounded by landform that prevents mixing with cooler water and forms a natural hot tub, as seen in the enlarged illustration on the left. Low winds and a high-pressure system further helped heat the bay, while muddy waters darkened the water enhancing solar heating.
To maintain the crisis hoax, it’s also important to ignore conflicting data. Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air temperature, and some both. Just 56 miles to the southwest of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days (lower left graph), and then cooled to 86°F. Manatee Bay’s buoy lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph), which then cooled to the low 80s, even dipping to 76°F. Those air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented.
The hottest temperature ever recorded in the state of Florida was 109 degrees on June 29, 1931, in Monticello located over 400 miles north of Everglades National Park. According to Wikipedia Everglades National Park’s average maximum air temperatures for July is 92.5°F And the record high for July was 102°F. Nevertheless, Washington Post pushed “Extremely warm waters linked to record-setting heat over South Florida … The extreme ocean heat comes amid Florida’s hottest July on record,” trying to keep the climate crisis hoax alive.
At the top of today’s “climate change” search results promoted by Google News is an article by Axios claiming “Florida’s strawberry industry threatened by climate change.” The article uncritically parrots talking points from a paper published by the activist group Environment Defense Fund (EDF), which raises hundreds of millions of dollars each year promoting false climate scares. A look at objective data, however, shows strawberry production in Florida and nationwide set records almost every year as our planet modestly warms.
The Axios article asserts warmer temperatures are reducing the amount of time that Florida strawberries are experiencing ideal growing temperatures between 50 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The article also claims global warming is causing more frequent and destructive hurricanes, allegedly harming strawberry production.
Notably, and typically for such climate-scare articles, neither EDF nor Axios present any objective data to support their claims of declining strawberry production. Instead, they rely merely on the conjecture and speculation of EDF activists who have a strong financial self-interest in promoting a climate scare.
Fortunately, we do have data regarding Florida and national strawberry harvests. As shown in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart below, Florida’s strawberry harvests increased by nearly 50 percent between 2001 and 2019, from approximately 135 million pounds per year to 195 million pounds per year. The strawberry news is even better nationally. USDA reports California strawberry harvests increased by nearly 80 percent between 2001 and 2019, from approximately 1050 million pounds per year to 1820 million pounds per year. California (90 percent) and Florida (8 percent) account for 98 percent of America’s strawberry production.
So how do EDF and Axios get away with inducing people to believe global warming is harming strawberry production? They (1) make unsupported predictions related to climate change, (2) hide the objective and verifiable evidence that strawberry harvests are dramatically improving with modest warming, longer growing seasons, and fewer frost events, (3) hide the fact that EDF raises money by promoting climate scares, and (4) promote their self-serving and provably false speculation about strawberry harvests as scientific ‘findings.’
People with open minds and scientific curiosity, however, will investigate and follow the facts.
James Taylor is the President of the Heartland Institute. Taylor is also director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy.
Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism.
This article is a about hypothesis based on folklore and its potential plausibility. It is not presented as a scientific study.
Turtle nesting season has begun in Florida. A bartender, “A”, at my local watering hole is a big turtle enthusiast. So I let “A” know that on my recent walks along the beach, I’ve been seeing lots of new roped-off nests popping up as the nesting season begins.
“A” asked me how far away the nests were located from the water. This is something I hadn’t considered and hadn’t really taken note of. She explained that many locals believe that if a hurricane season is going to be intense the turtles would place their nests up the beach, farther away from the surf than normal. So, a nesting season where turtles lay their eggs close to the high tide line is a prediction for a calm season.
In subsequent walks I paid attention to where the nests are located on the beach. As luck would so have it, this month we had a big flood of seaweed at the same time the King tide occurred. This clearly marked the high tide level making it easy to spot. It turns out that every turtle nest I’ve seen this season are located just above the King tide line.
Sea Turtle Nest on Fort Lauderdale Beach, Florida, May 2023, by Charles Rotter
According to Florida folklore this will be calm storm season. The incubation period for sea turtles is 30 to 90 days. A prediction three months out, and subsequent change in nesting behavior would have a tremendous evolutionary advantage on breeding success.
Nests placed farther than necessary from the water expose the eggs to dehydration and excess predation, especially on that precarious night the young turtles hatch and make a dash for the water. Sea birds and crabs lie in wait for such events.
When nests are placed too close to the water the risk of drowning the eggs occurs,
For the eggs to survive and have a chance of hatching, sea turtles must lay their eggs on sandy beaches. As they are developing, the embryos breathe air through a membrane in the eggs, and so they cannot survive if they are continuously covered with water. https://conserveturtles.org/information-sea-turtles-frequently-asked-questions/#21
as well as the physical danger of being washed away in the storm.
Sea turtles have been around for around 150 million years. If it this level of predictive accuracy for seasonal storm levels were somehow possible, that’s plenty of time for selective pressure to cause turtles to evolve this survival edge. Whatever the turtles may be using to forecast, be it currents, temperature, salinity, barometric pressure, if it’s possible, they would likely have evolved to be able to do it.
Addendum. Here’s a photo from July of last year helping errant hatchlings get to the Ocean after they’ve headed in the wrong direction.
Sea Turtle Rescue, July 30, 2020, by Charles Rotter
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
