Homeowner Insurance increased by climate change?

[Robert W]

I agree that wildfires have been around for a long time--it is also true that there are more of them in recent history---due to the fact that at least half of them are human caused---but climate has nothing to do with it.

There are less wildfires that are actually more severe in many cases. Climate as you say is not connected.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good Afternoon.

MSN

MSN recently posted this article about how climate change was causing homeowners insurances to be unaffordable, or insuperable, and I'd like to reply to that for a moment.

The first thing I noticed was that they said that insurance premiums were going up in California and Florida, but also in Utah for example. It's true Utah's home insurance rates have gone up... but Utah's rates were artificially lower than nearly any other state around them. So the rates have gone up, but it's just coming up to normal market rates.

This is just another example of the media telling the truth, while flat out lying. Because Utah's increase in home insurance is for a completely unrelated reason than California or Florida... but they imply that it's the same, and related to climate change when it is not.

Now back to California and Florida.

There is no evidence at all, from any reliable source that I have ever found, that shows that "extreme" weather is more likely today than in the past.

What is different, is that more people live in these areas than in the past. AND.... more people are building more expensive homes, than in the past.

So for example Florida. When building a home was super cheaper, and you built small but sturdy homes, the cost to insure them even in Hurricane zone was relatively cheap.

But now they are building $5 Million dollar homes along the coast, and there are millions more homes than before, the cost of insuring all that is expensive. Yes if you build more expensive homes, and more of them in a hurricane zone, then yes it cost more to insure them.

Yeah. That has nothing at all to do with climate change. That has to do with larger more expensive homes, and more people living in this hurricane prone area.

California on the other hand, has a much bigger problem. And that is.... that they have a government that isn't doing it's job.

People seem to have this goofy idea that California never had wild fires all that much, and then "climate change", and now it's having a huge problem.

California has ALWAYS had wild fires. They had wild fires before we have records. We know this because the natives told us this long ago. Additionally I've found documents talking about how California was a natural fire plane back in the late 1800s. People were writing papers about how California was a wild fire area all the way back then. This is not new. This is not news. This is not a change. This is not climate change or one too many SUVs or something.

This is the normal natural state of California. It has always been a wild fire area. Always.

In the 1906 fire that destroyed nearly the entire city of San Fransisco, that fire was started by an Earthquake. However, one of the key scandals that came out of that fire, was that the fire chief of the city had pleaded for months and even years, to expand water reserves for the fire department, and upgrade the equipment they had, because the fire chief said specifically that a wild fire would quickly over run the city.

So they knew and understood in 1906 that this was in fact a fire plane, and they needed to be prepared for it. They were not worried about too many Model Ts rolling around was going to warm the planet and make wild fires, because they already understood this was a wild fire area. Long periods without rain, normal. Long duration high speed Santa Anna winds, normal. Wild fire prime area.... NORMAL.

This isn't a 'new' phenomenon in the area.

But what ALSO IS NOT NEW.... is the government ignoring their duty. The upgraded water supply for dealing with fires, and the better equipment to fight fires, never came to San Fransisco in 1906, which is why when the city caught fire after the Earthquake, millions died, and nearly the entire city burned down, after the fire trucks were over run by flames, and the water supply dried up. At one point they were trying to pump raw sewage onto the fires, and they ran out of that 'water' too. And so they literally just slept in the ruins outside of town, and watched it burn all day and all night, until it burned itself out.

And here we are in the 2020s, and the government was well aware of the fire danger, and the well aware they needed to send out crews to clear brush, to reduce the fire hazard, and they didn't. They didn't upgrade their fire departments, even though they were told multiple times that they needed to do so. And they didn't save more water for dealing with wild fires. And they didn't clear the brush knowing it posed a wild fire risk.

However, that's not all.

What the government of California DID do... is they increased the cost of building housing DRAMATICALLY. Endless regulations and minimum wage laws, and permits, and fees, and all the other controls. All this has made the price of housing insanely high as people are well aware.

But what they don't seem to grasp, is that this costs the insurance company more money. If you insure your house, and the policy states that it will pay to have the house rebuilt.... and now that cost is higher because wages are higher, and regulations are higher, and delays and permits and "environmental impact studies" and all this stupidity.... well that cost is now on the insurance company, which means dramatically higher premiums.

And all that has NOTHING to do with the climate at all. It has to do with you voting to screw your life over. And you getting exactly what you voted for.

Similarly, prior to the recent wild fire, the California government regulated insurance premiums, preventing insurance companies from charging what they deemed the policy to be worth.
The result was that 12 of the largest insurance companies fled the state.

Which is just another economic principal, that any time you regulate price with price control laws, you end up with shortages. In this case, a shortage of insurance companies not willing to insure housing in California..... which makes sense given the government already proved they'll simply allow the city to burn down, and not take steps to improve water supplies, or cut brush to reduce wild fire hazards.

But of course instead of doing what any rational person does... which is see that your endless regulations are making things worse... instead they simply allowed insurance companies to use a catastrophe factor to their insurance rates.

Which basically increases costs, but still adds massive expensive regulations to follow to do it, which means even higher premiums than if they just had no regulations.

So this is a man-made disaster, but not from climate change, but from government changing the market, and not doing their job.

Not that I have a problem with this. Just like California in 1906, the voting public voted for what they are getting. So let them have it.

LOL




Like
Dislike

Eureka, Utah Evacuation Linked to Cottonwood Fire​

Eureka, Utah, is among the communities affected by the Cottonwood Fire, which has rapidly grown to over 61,000 acres with 0% containment and is burning east of Beaver in Beaver County Yahoo+1. While Eureka’s evacuation is not directly tied to the Cottonwood Fire’s main burn area, the fire’s expansion and hazardous conditions have prompted READY evacuation status for the town and surrounding ranches ABC4 Utah.

Evacuation Status and Actions​

• READY status: Residents are advised to prepare to evacuate at a moment’s notice, with pets, essential documents, and a go-bag ready fox13now+1.
• Shelter locations: Evacuation centers have been set up at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Elberta and other nearby facilities ABC4 Utah.
• Travel alerts: Highway 6 is closed in the area, and residents are urged to avoid the region until conditions improve ABC4 Utah.

Fire Context​

• The Cottonwood Fire ignited around 3 p.m. on June 22, 2026, near Beaver Mountain, and has since destroyed or damaged hundreds of cabins and other structures FOX 13 News Utah.
• Governor Spencer Cox has called it “possibly the most destructive fire in Utah history” due to its speed, heat, and property damage, though it is not the largest in acreage FOX 13 News Utah.
• Power outages are widespread in Piute County, and court operations in Garfield and Piute counties are suspended due to loss of power fox13now.

Safety and Preparedness​

Officials recommend:

• Gathering medications, important documents, and a go-kit.
• Preparing pets and vehicles for quick departure.
• Monitoring local TV, radio, and emergency alerts for updates ABC4 Utah.

Bottom line: Eureka’s evacuation readiness is a precaution against the Cottonwood Fire’s expanding threat. Residents should remain alert, follow official instructions, and be prepared to leave immediately if ordered.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are less wildfires that are actually more severe in many cases. Climate as you say is not connected.

LOL Typical denier lie. Two major factors in wildfires. Wind speed and temperature. Here is the evidence for an increase in wind speed. However, unmentioned in this analysis is that the increase is not in the daily average wind speed, but the increase in 30 mph to 50+ mph wind storms during periods of high temperatures. This creates conditions for power lines to cause major fires such as the one in California that killed 87 people in Paradise, or the one that burned along Highway 22 east of Salem in 2021.

Increased Wind Speeds on the West Coast Over the Last Two Decades​

Recent climate data and research show that average wind speeds along the U.S. West Coast have increased over the past 20–22 years, with the most notable changes occurring in the western half of the country.

Trend and Magnitude
Analysis of 100‑meter wind speed data from 2000 to 2022 found that average wind speeds over most of the contiguous U.S. have risen by 4% or more, with the largest increases concentrated in the western U.S. and far Northeast www.spglobal.com. Utah recorded the highest growth rate at +6.4%, and the western half of the U.S. saw increases from 3% to 7% over the same period www.spglobal.com. While the Great Plains have the highest absolute wind speeds, the West Coast has also experienced measurable gains, especially in coastal and inland areas.

Climate Drivers
The increase is part of a broader reversal of a decades‑long trend called “global terrestrial stilling”, when surface winds slowed due to reduced temperature gradients between equator and poles. Since about 2010, wind speeds have rebounded in many regions, including North America, likely due to ocean–atmosphere oscillations and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns Climate Signals. For the West Coast, shifts in the North Pacific High (NPH) and associated subsidence patterns have influenced nearshore winds, with some models projecting continued changes in wind direction and strength by the end of the century AMetSoc.

Extreme Weather Context
While long‑term averages are rising, the West Coast has also seen more frequent and intense storm events. For example, a November 2024 “bomb cyclone” brought hurricane‑force winds to Northern California and the Pacific Northwest, causing widespread damage University of Miami News and Events. Such events are becoming more common, and while they are episodic, they contribute to the perception of stronger winds.

Implications

• Wind energy: Higher average speeds can improve turbine output, benefiting renewable energy generation www.spglobal.com.
• Ecosystems: Changes in wind patterns affect upwelling systems like the California Current, which support marine productivity AMetSoc.
• Human systems: Stronger winds can increase hazards for infrastructure, transportation, and outdoor activities.

Summary
Over the last two decades, West Coast wind speeds have increased modestly but significantly, especially compared to earlier decades of stilling. This change is linked to large‑scale atmospheric and oceanic shifts, with both long‑term trends and extreme storm events shaping the region’s wind climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are less wildfires that are actually more severe in many cases. Climate as you say is not connected.

And here is the second leg of that formula for catastrophic fires here in Oregon;




Like
Dislike

Increase in 90° Days in the Willamette Valley Over the Past Two Decades​

Yes — the number of 90°F or hotter days in the Willamette Valley has increased significantly over the past two decades, and the trend is part of a broader warming climate pattern.

According to the National Weather Service and Oregon state climatologist Larry O’Neill, Portland — a key Willamette Valley city — has averaged about 17 days above 90°F per year since 1940, but in recent years that has risen to between 20 and 25 days annually OPB+1. From 2021 through 2024, the city saw at least 24 days above 90°F each year, which is “substantially more” than the mid‑20th century when exceeding 20 such days was rare OPB.

The trend is not limited to Portland. In Salem, another Willamette Valley city, the average has jumped from about 17 days above 90°F per year historically to 34 days per year from 2021–2024, more than double the past average Salem Reporter. This increase is linked to human‑caused climate change, with greenhouse gas emissions raising average temperatures and making heat waves more frequent, prolonged, and intense OPB+1.

The 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome was a turning point, with record‑breaking temperatures and deadly consequences. Since then, heat waves have started earlier and lasted longer, especially in the past three years Salem Reporter. While extreme events like the 2021 dome are less common now due to more widespread air conditioning and cooling centers, the baseline number of 90°F days has risen and is expected to continue increasing OPB+1.

In summary: Over the past two decades, the Willamette Valley has experienced more than double the number of 90°F days compared to the mid‑20th century, a clear sign of regional warming and a growing heat‑related risk.

 

[Concerned American]

Wind speed and temperature. Here is the evidence for an increase in wind speed.

Any fire fighter can tell you that wild fires create their own weather/winds. LOL, I would like you to convince anyone in Utah that wind is caused by humans.

 

[Andylusion]

LOL



Like
Dislike

Eureka, Utah Evacuation Linked to Cottonwood Fire​

Eureka, Utah, is among the communities affected by the Cottonwood Fire, which has rapidly grown to over 61,000 acres with 0% containment and is burning east of Beaver in Beaver County Yahoo+1. While Eureka’s evacuation is not directly tied to the Cottonwood Fire’s main burn area, the fire’s expansion and hazardous conditions have prompted READY evacuation status for the town and surrounding ranches ABC4 Utah.

Evacuation Status and Actions​

• READY status: Residents are advised to prepare to evacuate at a moment’s notice, with pets, essential documents, and a go-bag ready fox13now+1.
• Shelter locations: Evacuation centers have been set up at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Elberta and other nearby facilities ABC4 Utah.
• Travel alerts: Highway 6 is closed in the area, and residents are urged to avoid the region until conditions improve ABC4 Utah.

Fire Context​

• The Cottonwood Fire ignited around 3 p.m. on June 22, 2026, near Beaver Mountain, and has since destroyed or damaged hundreds of cabins and other structures FOX 13 News Utah.
• Governor Spencer Cox has called it “possibly the most destructive fire in Utah history” due to its speed, heat, and property damage, though it is not the largest in acreage FOX 13 News Utah.
• Power outages are widespread in Piute County, and court operations in Garfield and Piute counties are suspended due to loss of power fox13now.

Safety and Preparedness​

Officials recommend:

• Gathering medications, important documents, and a go-kit.
• Preparing pets and vehicles for quick departure.
• Monitoring local TV, radio, and emergency alerts for updates ABC4 Utah.

Bottom line: Eureka’s evacuation readiness is a precaution against the Cottonwood Fire’s expanding threat. Residents should remain alert, follow official instructions, and be prepared to leave immediately if ordered.

Great. There was no contradiction between what I said, and your comment.
Did you have more of a point?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Great. There was no contradiction between what I said, and your comment.
Did you have more of a point?

He is the resident cut and paste master because he can't articulate an argument on his own.

 

[Old Rocks]

He is the resident cut and paste master because he can't articulate an argument on his own.

Oh, I could post unsupported nonsense just like you, but I prefer to post evidence rather than lame brained opinion. But the prime evidence for AGW is really quite simple, from the people in the disciplines that study the Earth. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Sciences, and every major University in the world have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. From the seminal paper of Dr. James Hansen;

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Get PDF (2.6 MB. Document is scanned, no OCR.)
• PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader or compatible viewing software to be viewed.
• Go to journal webpage

Export citation: [ BibTeX ] [ RIS ]

to the present publications from peer reviewed journals of the many scientific societies on this planet, no one has presented a paper that shows that we are not the cause of the present warming.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh, I could post unsupported nonsense just like you, but I prefer to post evidence rather than lame brained opinion. But the prime evidence for AGW is really quite simple, from the people in the disciplines that study the Earth. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Sciences, and every major University in the world have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. From the seminal paper of Dr. James Hansen;

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Get PDF (2.6 MB. Document is scanned, no OCR.)
• PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader or compatible viewing software to be viewed.
• Go to journal webpage

Export citation: [ BibTeX ] [ RIS ]

to the present publications from peer reviewed journals of the many scientific societies on this planet, no one has presented a paper that shows that we are not the cause of the present warming.

Ha ha ha, another cut and paste effort

Hansen is no longer a credible scientist as he has been a dismal failure his big sea level failure is a millstone around his pencil neck.

There is nothing alarming going on out there weatherwise.

 

[Concerned American]

Ha ha ha, another cut and paste effort

Hansen is no longer a credible scientist as he has been a dismal failure his big sea level failure is a millstone around his pencil neck.

There is nothing alarming going on out there weatherwise.

The media is going crazy. They've been wanting a catastrophic hurricane season going on the second year and it isn't promoting their panic. LOL, they should be jumping on the earthquakes in Venezuela, Philippines and CA, but I guess they can't blame those on climate change.

 

[Thinker101]

Good Afternoon.

MSN

MSN recently posted this article about how climate change was causing homeowners insurances to be unaffordable, or insuperable, and I'd like to reply to that for a moment.

The first thing I noticed was that they said that insurance premiums were going up in California and Florida, but also in Utah for example. It's true Utah's home insurance rates have gone up... but Utah's rates were artificially lower than nearly any other state around them. So the rates have gone up, but it's just coming up to normal market rates.

This is just another example of the media telling the truth, while flat out lying. Because Utah's increase in home insurance is for a completely unrelated reason than California or Florida... but they imply that it's the same, and related to climate change when it is not.

Now back to California and Florida.

There is no evidence at all, from any reliable source that I have ever found, that shows that "extreme" weather is more likely today than in the past.

What is different, is that more people live in these areas than in the past. AND.... more people are building more expensive homes, than in the past.

So for example Florida. When building a home was super cheaper, and you built small but sturdy homes, the cost to insure them even in Hurricane zone was relatively cheap.

But now they are building $5 Million dollar homes along the coast, and there are millions more homes than before, the cost of insuring all that is expensive. Yes if you build more expensive homes, and more of them in a hurricane zone, then yes it cost more to insure them.

Yeah. That has nothing at all to do with climate change. That has to do with larger more expensive homes, and more people living in this hurricane prone area.

California on the other hand, has a much bigger problem. And that is.... that they have a government that isn't doing it's job.

People seem to have this goofy idea that California never had wild fires all that much, and then "climate change", and now it's having a huge problem.

California has ALWAYS had wild fires. They had wild fires before we have records. We know this because the natives told us this long ago. Additionally I've found documents talking about how California was a natural fire plane back in the late 1800s. People were writing papers about how California was a wild fire area all the way back then. This is not new. This is not news. This is not a change. This is not climate change or one too many SUVs or something.

This is the normal natural state of California. It has always been a wild fire area. Always.

In the 1906 fire that destroyed nearly the entire city of San Fransisco, that fire was started by an Earthquake. However, one of the key scandals that came out of that fire, was that the fire chief of the city had pleaded for months and even years, to expand water reserves for the fire department, and upgrade the equipment they had, because the fire chief said specifically that a wild fire would quickly over run the city.

So they knew and understood in 1906 that this was in fact a fire plane, and they needed to be prepared for it. They were not worried about too many Model Ts rolling around was going to warm the planet and make wild fires, because they already understood this was a wild fire area. Long periods without rain, normal. Long duration high speed Santa Anna winds, normal. Wild fire prime area.... NORMAL.

This isn't a 'new' phenomenon in the area.

But what ALSO IS NOT NEW.... is the government ignoring their duty. The upgraded water supply for dealing with fires, and the better equipment to fight fires, never came to San Fransisco in 1906, which is why when the city caught fire after the Earthquake, millions died, and nearly the entire city burned down, after the fire trucks were over run by flames, and the water supply dried up. At one point they were trying to pump raw sewage onto the fires, and they ran out of that 'water' too. And so they literally just slept in the ruins outside of town, and watched it burn all day and all night, until it burned itself out.

And here we are in the 2020s, and the government was well aware of the fire danger, and the well aware they needed to send out crews to clear brush, to reduce the fire hazard, and they didn't. They didn't upgrade their fire departments, even though they were told multiple times that they needed to do so. And they didn't save more water for dealing with wild fires. And they didn't clear the brush knowing it posed a wild fire risk.

However, that's not all.

What the government of California DID do... is they increased the cost of building housing DRAMATICALLY. Endless regulations and minimum wage laws, and permits, and fees, and all the other controls. All this has made the price of housing insanely high as people are well aware.

But what they don't seem to grasp, is that this costs the insurance company more money. If you insure your house, and the policy states that it will pay to have the house rebuilt.... and now that cost is higher because wages are higher, and regulations are higher, and delays and permits and "environmental impact studies" and all this stupidity.... well that cost is now on the insurance company, which means dramatically higher premiums.

And all that has NOTHING to do with the climate at all. It has to do with you voting to screw your life over. And you getting exactly what you voted for.

Similarly, prior to the recent wild fire, the California government regulated insurance premiums, preventing insurance companies from charging what they deemed the policy to be worth.
The result was that 12 of the largest insurance companies fled the state.

Which is just another economic principal, that any time you regulate price with price control laws, you end up with shortages. In this case, a shortage of insurance companies not willing to insure housing in California..... which makes sense given the government already proved they'll simply allow the city to burn down, and not take steps to improve water supplies, or cut brush to reduce wild fire hazards.

But of course instead of doing what any rational person does... which is see that your endless regulations are making things worse... instead they simply allowed insurance companies to use a catastrophe factor to their insurance rates.

Which basically increases costs, but still adds massive expensive regulations to follow to do it, which means even higher premiums than if they just had no regulations.

So this is a man-made disaster, but not from climate change, but from government changing the market, and not doing their job.

Not that I have a problem with this. Just like California in 1906, the voting public voted for what they are getting. So let them have it.

Could be worse, you could be in CA where insurance companies are bailing out of the state.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not to be overly nit picky, but climate change is real.... been changing since the ice age.
Man made climate change... that's a joke.

And there is a governmental regulation problem even in Florida.

View attachment 1272979
Look at Miami. I wonder why everyone is building where the Hurricanes and flood waters hit?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact they are flat out not legally allowed to build more inland away from the ocean, where they would be more likely to avoid catastrophic damage..... you know... to protect a wild life refuge.

I keep telling people.... you know you can "protect the earth" or you can have affordable housing. You can't have both. The reason housing prices keep jacking up sky high in Miami, is because the government is protecting the wild spotted flying turtle bat, or whatever.... and they can't build homes inland.

So the limited land left for housing, keeps going higher and higher and higher in price, and then you complain about cost of living.
You can't have both. Sorry.

Never been to Florida, have you? That area is nothing but a swamp. Do you know what happens when you build on a swamp? I'll give you a little while to figure it out.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Never been to Florida, have you? That area is nothing but a swamp. Do you know what happens when you build on a swamp? I'll give you a little while to figure it out.

I do believe there was a Monty Python skit about castles and Scot stubborness on the subject.

 

[Andylusion]

Oh, I could post unsupported nonsense just like you, but I prefer to post evidence rather than lame brained opinion. But the prime evidence for AGW is really quite simple, from the people in the disciplines that study the Earth. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Sciences, and every major University in the world have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. From the seminal paper of Dr. James Hansen;

Publication Abstracts​

Hansen et al. 1981​

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Get PDF (2.6 MB. Document is scanned, no OCR.)
• PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader or compatible viewing software to be viewed.
• Go to journal webpage

Export citation: [ BibTeX ] [ RIS ]

to the present publications from peer reviewed journals of the many scientific societies on this planet, no one has presented a paper that shows that we are not the cause of the present warming.

https://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Hansen_2007%20Sea%20level%20rise%20and%20reticence.pdf

"This planetary energy imbalance is itself now sufficient to melt ice corresponding to one meter of
sea level rise per decade." - J E Hansen published in 2007, based on evidence from 2005.

So his claims are pretty clear.

So it's now been 2 decades since this research was done, and 19 years since being published.

2 meters is 6.5 feet.

Plymouth Rock today is still at sea level. According to J E Hansen, that rock should be under water by 6 feet.

His claims didn't come true, as none of the eco-freak-outs, paid by government 'scientists', have ever come true.

So my point to you is, all of these climate change science that was influenced by government grants and funding towards claims of catastrophic climate change outcomes... none of them come true, and yet none of the people who built their career around saying we're all going to die, have ever admitted or apologized for their false claims.

The real science has never shown man made global climate change. None. Not even one yet that I have ever found.

 

[Andylusion]

Never been to Florida, have you? That area is nothing but a swamp. Do you know what happens when you build on a swamp? I'll give you a little while to figure it out.

Wasn't Washington DC built on a swamp? Isn't that why we call clearing corruption "draining the swamp" in government? Because our capital was swamp land?

That said... this is yet another weird comment in my view. Are you telling me that every single square inch of land outside Miami is swamp? You walk 3 feet past the city limits and sink?

I doubt that. I wager there is in fact usable land around Miami.

 

[Concerned American]

Wasn't Washington DC built on a swamp? Isn't that why we call clearing corruption "draining the swamp" in government? Because our capital was swamp land?

That said... this is yet another weird comment in my view. Are you telling me that every single square inch of land outside Miami is swamp? You walk 3 feet past the city limits sink?

I doubt that. I wager there is in fact usable land around Miami.

There are all kinds of examples where humans have reclaimed land that wasn't usable without intervention. Mexico City is one. The SF wharf area is another. There are limitations in all of them. DC's shows in the problems with the reflecting pool and SF experiences liquifaction problems down by the wharf and marina every time they have an earthquake. I am sure Mexico City has similar issues. Kind of sheds a light on what is meant when someone says their foundations were made of clay or built on shifting sand.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wasn't Washington DC built on a swamp? Isn't that why we call clearing corruption "draining the swamp" in government? Because our capital was swamp land?

That said... this is yet another weird comment in my view. Are you telling me that every single square inch of land outside Miami is swamp? You walk 3 feet past the city limits and sink?

I doubt that. I wager there is in fact usable land around Miami.

I lived in Florida for many years. Perhaps you should go visit and find out for yourself.

Do you remember the condo that collapsed in south Florida a few years back in 2021? Guess why?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ha ha ha, another cut and paste effort

Hansen is no longer a credible scientist as he has been a dismal failure his big sea level failure is a millstone around his pencil neck.

There is nothing alarming going on out there weatherwise.

 

[Concerned American]

View attachment 1273657

Nice cut and paste of summer in the SW US for the last 130 years of records. Thanks for that.

 

[Old Rocks]

https://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Hansen_2007%20Sea%20level%20rise%20and%20reticence.pdf

"This planetary energy imbalance is itself now sufficient to melt ice corresponding to one meter of
sea level rise per decade." - J E Hansen published in 2007, based on evidence from 2005.

So his claims are pretty clear.

So it's now been 2 decades since this research was done, and 19 years since being published.

2 meters is 6.5 feet.

View attachment 1273611

Plymouth Rock today is still at sea level. According to J E Hansen, that rock should be under water by 6 feet.

His claims didn't come true, as none of the eco-freak-outs, paid by government 'scientists', have ever come true.

So my point to you is, all of these climate change science that was influenced by government grants and funding towards claims of catastrophic climate change outcomes... none of them come true, and yet none of the people who built their career around saying we're all going to die, have ever admitted or apologized for their false claims.

The real science has never shown man made global climate change. None. Not even one yet that I have ever found.

Another full of bullshit denier. There is a steady increase in the rise in sea level. However, there is also temperature inertia in the melting of ice. Ever heard of the heat of fusion for ice? No, I thought not. So here is the evidence for a steadily increasing rise in sea level;
"Around 3.6 inches
As Earth warms, melting land ice and warming oceans are causing sea level to rise. Satellite measurements have shown that the global sea level has risen around 3.6 inches (91 millimeters) since 1993. Data source: Satellite sea level observations.

NASA
Sea Level - Earth Indicator"

And here is what heat of fusion for ice is;




Like
Dislike

The heat of fusion of ice is approximately 334 kJ/kg (or 80 cal/g).​

The heat of fusion is the amount of energy required to change a substance from a solid to a liquid at its melting point without changing its temperature biologyinsights.com+1. For ice, this occurs at 0°C (32°F) under standard atmospheric pressure. When ice melts, the energy supplied is used to break the hydrogen bonds holding water molecules in a rigid, hexagonal crystalline structure, rather than increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules, so the temperature remains constant during the phase change biologyinsights.com.

Molecular Explanation​

Ice has a crystalline structure where water molecules are held in place by hydrogen bonds. During melting, the heat energy disrupts these bonds, allowing the molecules to move freely and form liquid water. This process is endothermic, meaning it absorbs energy from the surroundings biologyinsights.com+1. The reverse process, freezing, releases the same amount of energy, making the heat of solidification equal in magnitude but opposite in sign Wikipedia.

Practical Implications​

• Cooling beverages: Ice absorbs significant heat as it melts, keeping drinks cold without raising the liquid’s temperature significantly biologyinsights.com.
• Climate regulation: The high heat of fusion of ice plays a role in moderating Earth's climate by absorbing heat during melting and releasing it during freezing biologyinsights.com.
• Calorimetry experiments: The heat of fusion is used to calculate energy transfer in laboratory experiments, such as determining the energy required to melt a known mass of ice in water sinhainstitute.com.
  Understanding the heat of fusion is essential in thermodynamics, meteorology, and engineering, as it governs energy exchange during phase transitions of water."

As you can see, you can raise the temperature of the ice a bit every year, and there is still ice. However, there is a point where that ice becomes water, still at 0 temperature C, but it is water. Now imagine a very large amount of water slowly approaching the temperature at which the ice changes to water. For many years, only a little sea level rise, then, suddenly, every year see major rises in sea level. That is exactly what happened in the last continental glacial melt. A meter a year was not unusual.




Like
Dislike

Rate of Rise in Sea Level from Continental Ice Melt​

If all continental ice — including the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, mountain glaciers, and smaller ice caps — melted, global sea level would rise by about 60–70 meters (200–230 feet) NASA Sea Level Change Portal+1. This is because land-based ice displaces far less water than the same mass of ice floating in the ocean, so when it melts, it adds significant volume to the oceans.

Current and Historical Rates​

• Historically, during the retreat of continental glaciers after the Last Glacial Maximum (~20,000 years ago), sea level rose steadily as ice melted and flowed into the oceans. The rate was much slower than today, but it was the dominant driver of sea level change for millennia USGS.gov.
• Today, ice sheet melt is the largest contributor to sea level rise. NASA and the IPCC report that ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica has been responsible for a third of the total mean sea level rise since 2002 NASA Sea Level Change Portal. For example, the Antarctic ice sheet loses about 150 billion metric tons of ice per year, and ice shelves have lost roughly 6,000 gigatons in the past 25 years NASA Sea Level Change Portal.
• Mountain glaciers and smaller ice caps add a smaller but still significant amount, enough to raise sea level by ~1–2 feet if they all melted scienceinsights.org.

Projected Rates​

• If ice sheet melt continues at current or accelerated rates, centuries of sea level rise could be measured in tens of centimeters per decade in some regions, with the fastest increases in tropical and mid-latitude coastal zones NSIDC.
• A worst-case scenario for Antarctica — sudden collapse of the Thwaites Glacier — could add over 3 meters (10 feet) to sea level over the next few hundred years NSIDC.

Key Points​

• Rate depends on ice sheet stability: Thinning and calving of ice shelves can accelerate melt from the interior ice sheets NASA Sea Level Change Portal.
• Not uniform: Sea level rise from ice melt is not evenly distributed; some areas near ice sheets may see local falls due to changes in ocean currents and water density NSIDC.
• Long-term: Even a fraction of the ice sheets melting today could cause several centimeters of sea level rise in the next century, with the full melt taking centuries to complete.

In short, while the full melt of all continental ice would raise sea level by over 200 feet, the current rate of ice loss is already contributing to measurable sea level rise, and future rates will depend on how quickly ice sheets and glaciers continue to melt.