Weatherdem's Weblog

Bridging climate science, citizens, and policy


1 Comment

Research: Timing Sea-Level Rise Projections

A recent surge (see my last post) of published papers on sea-level rise generated the following paper: “Ice sheet collapse following a prolonged period of stable sea level during the last interglacial” (subs. req’d) by O’Leary et al. in Nature Geoscience.  The authors embarked on this work to provide information on potential events in our future as sea levels rise in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.  From their abstract: “During the last interglacial period, 127–116 kyr ago, global mean sea level reached a peak of 5–9  m above present-day sea level.”  An “interglacial” is a time period in between periods with extensive polar ice sheets.  The last interglacial is also known as the Eemian.  During the Eemian, sea levels were 16-30 feet higher than today’s level.  Scientists estimate that 4 feet of additional sea level rise is already locked-in due to past GHG emissions.  Our current emissions pathway through 2100 locks in 23 feet of future sea level rise (over the course of the next few hundred years).

Most analysis of future sea-level rise suggests that the rise is likely to occur over the course of decades to centuries.  The results are dramatic – more than 1,400 coastal US municipalities would be mostly underwater with an additional 23 feet of sea level – regardless of the timescale in which the seas rise.  Society can respond more easily if the time is century-scale than if it is decadal-scale.  The costs are high regardless, but societal strife might be less if the timescale is longer.  Imagine telling one million people they have to abandon their homes in the next decade due to rising seas while their governments are forced to move infrastructure such as roads and airports (billions of dollars’ worth) and businesses have to move inland as well.  I don’t think the result would be pretty.

O’Leary et al. focused on an even more striking event within the Eemian (which was as warm as projections of likely late 21st century temperatures): a rapid, not gradual, increase in sea levels.  “We show that between 127 and 119 kyr ago, eustatic sea level remained relatively stable at about 3–4 m above present sea level. [...] We suggest that in the last few thousand years of the interglacial, a critical ice sheet stability threshold was crossed, resulting in the catastrophic collapse of polar ice sheets and substantial sea-level rise.”

Their results (along with others’) show that sea levels were stable a few meters above the current level.  Then, something caused polar ice sheets to melt “rapidly” and sea levels to rise quickly from 3-4 m above today’s to 9 m above today’s. So sea levels rose from 10-12 feet above today’s to nearly 30 feet above today’s in less than one thousand years.  If such an event happens again in our future, one thousand years is a relatively long time to respond to the primary change.  Secondary changes might challenge our responses, but that isn’t my focus today.

If O’Leary’s estimate of one thousand years is too long by one order of magnitude, serious challenges would exist.  If sea levels rise by 17 feet in less than one hundred years, how would we respond?  How much infrastructure would we leave to the rising seas because moving it is just too costly?  In addition to continued sampling of former underwater sites in Australia and elsewhere to gauge total sea level change, scientists need to refine methods to pin down the timing of past changes.  How frequently did past rapid changes occur?  What were their magnitude?  Then, decision makers need to establish two-tiered response plans.  The first should address the most common type of change: gradual rise/fall over hundreds to thousands of years.  The second therefore should address the more serious challenge of sub-centennial rapid sea level change.  We can’t implement plans that aren’t formulated beforehand.

It is worth noting that Mercer first wrote about polar ice sheet collapse 35 years ago.  This phenomenon is not new but is being better informed by subsequent research.  Hat tip New York Times.


1 Comment

Research: Updated Projections of Future Sea Level Rise

An international team of climate scientists led by Anders Levermann wrote a paper than appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the US that described long-term (2,000y) sea level changes in response to different stabilized temperature thresholds.  You can find a short Reuters summary of the paper here.  I will provide more detail and share some observations of this paper.  The paper garnered a good amount of attention in climate activist circles since publication.

First, a little historical perspective.  Global mean sea levels rose in the 20th and 21st centuries: about 0.2m.  Prior to research conducted in the past five years, projections of additional 21st century sea-level rise ranged from another 0.2m to 2.0m.  These projections did not, in general, consider feedbacks; the parent simulations did not consider cryosphere processes (i.e., melting glaciers and the land-based Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets).  More recent research included more feedbacks and cryosphere processes, but their treatment remains immature.  Additionally, recent research started to examine projections based on realistic emissions scenarios, after researchers began to accept the fact that policymakers are unlikely to enact meaningful climate policy any time soon.  As such, sea-level projection ranges increased.  Which is where this latest paper comes in.

Levermann et al. reported a 2.3 m/°C sea-level rise projection in the next two thousand years.  Benjamin Strauss’s PNAS paper put this into context:

[W]e have already committed to a long-term future sea level >1.3 or 1.9m higher than today and are adding about 0.32 m/decade to the total:10 times the rate of observed contemporary sea-level rise

Thus, if global temperatures rise only 1°C and stabilize there (an extremely unlikely scenario), sea-levels two thousand years from now could be 2.3 m higher.  This might not sound like much, but an additional 7.5 feet of sea level rise would inundate 1.5 million U.S. peoples’ homes at high tide.  With 2°C, sea levels could rise 4.6m.  On our current emissions pathway, global mean temperatures would rise 4°C, which would result in an additional 9.2 m of sea level rise.  That’s 30 feet higher than today!  Levermann notes that these higher sea level projections are supported by sea level heights that occurred in the distant past (paleoclimate), even with their associated uncertainties.

According to Strauss’s analysis, such a rise would threaten more than 1,400 municipalities – and those are just U.S. municipalities that exist today, not tomorrow.  Globally, billions of people would be adversely affected.  What social stresses would billions of people moving inland exert?  The U.S. experienced its own small glimpse into this future post-Hurricane Katrina as a few thousand people permanently abandoned their below-sea level neighborhoods.

And now a couple of important points.  Some of the processes Levermann utilized involved linear change.  In complex systems like the Earth’s climate, very few changes are linear.  Many more are exponential.  When I discuss linear and exponential change with my students, I include a number of different examples because our species doesn’t easily understand exponential change.  We typically severely underestimate the final value of something that changes exponentially.  If changes within the climate system occur exponentially, the Levermann projections probably won’t be valid.  But their estimate will likely be an underestimate.

A USA Today article on the Levermann paper has this quote:

Looking at such a distant tomorrow “could scare people about something that might not happen for centuries,” says Jayantha Obeysekera of the South Florida Water Management District, a regional government agency. He says such long-term projections may not be helpful to U.S. planners who tend to focus on the next few decades.

Should people be scared that their communities will be underwater in 2000 years?  I don’t think they will be, number one.  Few people pay attention to trends that will affect them in 2 or 20 years.  200 or 2000 are well beyond anybody’s individual concern.  But I think society as a whole should examine this updated projection.  Do we want to condemn one-third of Florida to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?  Do we want to condemn thousands of towns and cities to that fate, even if the time horizon may be well beyond our lifetime?

Moving beyond the inevitable question regarding fear, what do these results mean?  We need to include results like these in planning processes.  If nothing else, planners and policymakers have more realistic estimates of likely future sea level in hand.  Those estimates will continue to change (hopefully for the better) with additional research.  But decision-making shouldn’t stop with the expectation that some future projection might be perfect because it won’t be.  The decisions we make today will have profound effects on the eventual level of the sea in the distant future.  There will also be countless effects on the climate, societies, and ecosystems until we reach that level.   That is what today’s decision-making needs to address.

Climate Central has a useful map to investigate how potential thresholds implicate sea level rise with respect to US states at different points in the future.


5 Comments

How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change – Scientific American article

Scientific American published an article summarizing what I’ve written about for a couple of years: the IPCC’s projections aren’t 100% correct.  Gasp – the horror!  But, contrary to what skeptics think, the direction the IPCC’s reports were wrong are opposite of what they claim.  The projections time and again underestimated future changes.  I think a valid complaint, and one I’ve made many times myself, is that the IPCC process is too conservative – it takes too long to get the kind of consensus they’re looking for.  Rapidly changing conditions are not well handled by the IPCC process.  When there is conflicting evidence of something, the IPCC has tended to say nothing in an effort not to upset anybody.  The good news is there are indications this is changing.  The list:

1. Emissions

This is the biggest one.  Too many studies focused on moderate emission pathways, when yearly updates showed our actual emissions were on the high range of those considered by the IPCC.  I actually posted on this two days ago: CO2 Emissions Continue to Track At Top of IPCC Range.  This has implications for every other process that follows.

2. Temperature

More accurately, energy in the climate system is the variable of interest.  It is easy to point out that temperatures since 2000 haven’t increased as much as projected.  It is also easy to compare observed trends since 1980 and claim AR4 models over-predicted temperature rise.  This conflates a couple of issues: the AR4 wasn’t used to project since 1980.  More importantly, the difference between observed trends since 1980 and projected temperatures from half of the AR4 models was less than 0.04°C (0.072°F).  That’s pretty darned small.  With respect to the trend since 2000, the real issue is energy gain.  The vast majority of energy has accumulated in the oceans:

Photobucket

More specifically, if the heat is transported quickly to the deep ocean (>2000ft), the sea surface temperature doesn’t increase rapidly.  Nor does atmosphere or land temperatures change.  This is true at least in the short-term.  When the ocean transports this heat from the deep back to the surface, we should be able to more easily measure that heat.  Put simply, the temporary hiatus of temperature rise is just that: temporary.  Are we prepared for when that hiatus ends?

The relatively small increase in near-surface air and land temperatures is thus explained.  The IPCC never claimed the 4.3° to 11.5°F temperature rise (AR4 projection) would happen by 2020 – it is likely to happen by 2100.  Expect more synergy between projected temperatures and observed temperatures in the coming years.  Also remember that climate is made up of long-term weather observations.

Additionally, aerosols emitted by developing nations have been observed to reflect some of the incoming solar radiation back to space.  Once these aerosols precipitate out of the atmosphere or are not emitted at some point in the future, the absorption of longwave radiation by the remaining greenhouse gases will be more prominent.  The higher the concentration of gases, the more radiation will be absorbed and the faster the future temperature rise is likely to be.  These aerosols are thus masking the signal that would otherwise be measured if they weren’t present.

3. Arctic Meltdown

This is the big story of 2012.  The Arctic sea ice melted in summer 2012 to a new record low: an area the size of the United States melted this year!  Even as late as 2007 (prior to the previous record-low melt), the IPCC projected that Arctic ice wouldn’t decrease much until at least 2050.  Instead, we’re decades ahead of this projection – despite only a relatively small global temperature increase in the past 25 years (0.15°C or so).  What will happen when temperatures increase by multiple degrees Centigrade?

4. Ice sheets

These are the land-based sheets, which are melting up to 100 years faster than the IPCC’s first three reports.  2007′s report was the first to identify more rapid ice sheet melt.  The problem is complex cryospheric dynamics.  Understandably, the most remote and inhospitable regions on Earth are the least studied.  Duh.  That’s changing, with efforts like the fourth International Polar Year, the results of which are still being studied and published.  Needless to say, modern instrumentation and larger field campaigns have resulted in advances in polar knowledge.

5. Sea Level Rise

It’s nice being relevant.  I just posted something new on this yesterday: NOAA Sea-Level Rise Report Issued – Dec 2012.  The 3.3mm of sea-level rise per year is higher than the 2001 report’s projection of 2mm per year.  Integrated over 100 years, that 1mm difference results in 4″ more SLR.  But again, with emission and energy underestimates, the 3.3mm rate of SLR is expected to increase in future decades, according to the latest research.  Again, another mm per year results in another 4″ 100 years from now.  Factors affecting SLR that the IPCC didn’t address in 2007 includes global ocean warming (warmer water takes up more volume), faster ice sheet melt, and faster glacial melt.  Additionally, feedback mechanisms are still poorly understood and therefore not well represented in today’s state-of-the-art models.

6. Ocean Acidification

The first 3 IPCC reports didn’t even mention this effect.  In the past 250 years, ocean acidity has increased by 30% – not a trivial amount!  As the article points out, research on this didn’t even start until after 2000.

7. Thawing Tundra

Another area that is not well-studied and therefore not well understood.  The mechanics and processes need to be observed so they can be modeled more effectively.  1.5 trillion tons of carbon are locked away in the currently frozen tundra.  If these regions thaw, as is likely since the Arctic has observed the most warming to date, methane could be released to the atmosphere.  Since methane acts as a more efficient GHG over short time frames, this could accelerate short-term warming much more quickly than projected (See temperatures above).  The SciAm article points out the AR5, to be released next year, will once again not include projections on this topic.

8. Tipping Points

This is probably the most controversial aspect of this list.  Put simply, no one knows where potential tipping points exist, if they do at all.  The only way we’re likely to find out about tipping points is by looking in the past some day in the future.  By then, of course, moving back to other side of the tipping point will be all but impossible on any time-frame relevant to people alive then.

Summary

There are plenty of problems with the UNFCCC’s IPCC process.  Underestimation of critical variables is but one problem plaguing it.  Blame it on scientists who, by training, are very conservative in their projections and language.  They also didn’t think policymakers would fail to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Do policymakers relying on the IPCC projections know of and/or understand this nuance?  If not, how robust will their decisions be?  The IPCC process needs to be more transparent, including allowing more viewpoints to be expressed, say in an Appendix compendium.  The risks associated with underestimating future change are higher than the opposite.


Leave a comment

Research: Sea-Level Rise in Response to Warming Climate

From the top, I want to include important context for the research results I am presenting.  This research is based on peak warming of only either 1.5°C or 2°C.  It is my educated opinion that such goals are unrealistic.  Prevention of warming past 2°C is no longer a viable option based on the globe’s history of burning carbon-intensive fossil fuels as well as the medium- to long-term future, which doesn’t promise much of a difference.  Furthermore, as I have stated numerous times in the past year, policy discussion would be better served if scientists would conduct research on developments that are much likelier to occur and not the world they want to see (i.e., higher vs. lower emissions scenarios).  That said, this research fulfills an important role in the overall discussion because I think some of the results can be used as a “floor” – conditions are likely to reach higher magnitudes than those found in this and similar papers.

Michiel Schaeffer, William Hare, Stefan Rahmstorf & Martin Vermeer’s Nature paper was published on June 24, 2012.  They examined sea-level rise in response to warming scenarios using a semi-empirical model.  By 2100, global sea-level rise would be ~60cm above the 2000 level if global GHG emissions were zeroed by 2016.  This is an obvious fantasy world, but it provides a useful benchmark for other scenarios the scientists examined.  The reason sea-level rise would continue through the 21st century even if we haled emissions completely in the next 3-4 years is the response of the climate system to the anthropogenic forcing imparted on it through the 20th and early 21st centuries.  If 1.5°C or 2°C warming is not exceeded, global sea-level rise would be 75-80cm above the 2000 level.  The authors also report that unmitigated emissions could result in 100cm rise above 2000 levels.  It is important to note that 20th century sea level rise has been estimated to be ~20cm.  It doesn’t require much thought to realize that the rate of sea-level rise has increased throughout the 20th century and continues to do so in the 21st.  Moreover, it is clear that since we will most likely warm beyond 2°C, the 75-100cm projection can be viewed as a reasonable estimate for a “floor”: actual sea-level rise could be greater than this.

Continue reading


5 Comments

Sea-Level Rise Accounting; Climate Negotations; UK Energy Bill

An estimate of terrestrial water storage changes in the recent past (1961-2003) provides a potential answer for a significant portion of total (~42%) sea-level rise in a new study (summary):

Photobucket

The next round of climate negotiations are in Bonn, Germany this week.  Countries are trying to come up with the next climate agreement, but members disagree over whether and how such a measure would bind them.  I’ve concluded in the past year that international efforts haven’t and won’t work for the foreseeable future.  There are simply too many interests at the table trying to conceive something from scratch and the technological solutions aren’t readily at hand.  I think it would better for interested parties to form smaller groups and work on mutually beneficial goals with an eye toward keeping any agreements flexible and dynamic to accommodate new members and goals as needed.  The focus on a grand global bargain isn’t and won’t get the job done.

The U.K. is working on an energy bill and this article asks the question: will the bill help the U.K. meet its climate (emissions) goals?  Call me Debbie Downer, but the answer is relatively easy: no, it will not.  Nothing that is politically feasible in the UK (or US) right now will meet any kind of emissions goals in any time frame (unless those goals include larger numbers than exist today.)

The government is committed to decarbonising electricity generation by 2030, as well as slashing overall carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.

The UK will not decarbonize electricity generation by 2030.  Any way you look at it (e.g. here or here), the UK generates most of its electricity with fossil fuels (coal and natural gas).  Renewable sources are responsible for only ~3.5% of the electricity generated.  Is the UK seriously going to replace all currently existing coal and natural gas plants with renewable sources in 18 years, to say nothing of expectations of increasing electricity demand in that 18 year time span?  The scale of that project boggles the mind – it simply will not be accomplished.  And just so I am clear, the same thing holds true for every other nation, including the US.  This is exactly the type of project I worked on late last year – and I promise I will share those results in the future.  I look forward to hearing from my favorite UK blogger (Martin) both now and when I put that future post together on this topic – what think you?


Leave a comment

Canadian Glaciers, Ice Caps Melting Too

Glaciers and ice caps in the Canadian Arctic Archipelego have started melting.  This will contribute to sea-level rise for the remainder of the 21st century.  That’s a problem because the area contains one-third of the global volume of land ice outside the ice sheets.

Researchers found that the islands lost about 61 gigatonnes of ice per year from 2004 to 2009, enough to raise global sea levels about a millimeter in that time.

That rate of melt will only increase in the years ahead.  More mass into the world’s oceans and more heat accumulated from global warming means the rate that sea level rise is increasing will also increase.  And because of the out-sized influence of the dirty energy industry and its apologists, we remain unprepared for that situation.  Preparing for it will only become more expensive with time.


Leave a comment

Climate Tipping Points Better Defined: Likely Nearby; Strong Action Critical

NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato have a new draft paper that brings potential climate tipping points into more focus and the results are incredibly important.  They examine some differences between two recent geologic times, the Eemian and the Pliocene, and today.  During the Eemian, sea levels were 15-20 feet higher than today.  During the Pliocene, sea levels were 82 feet higher than today.  If we maintain our business-as-usual (BAU) greenhouse emissions path, the authors state that multi-meter sea level rise within this century becomes “almost dead certain” because of nonlinear responses to that forcing.  To be clear, that means that future temperature increases will not be equal for the same amount of future emissions.  Instead, future emissions will cause a radical and unreversable jump in global temperatures, which will lead to radical jumps in sea level rise.  We won’t have a 1″ per year increase in sea level.  The difference year after year will be greater and greater as the climate system attempts to find a new stable region.

I want to point out that Hansen and Sato use extremely strong language for climate scientists.  Will it be strong enough to generate the political will necessary to take us off that path?

Continue reading


Leave a comment

Will Work To Clean Up Everglades Matter?

Back in 2000, the Comprehensive Everglades  Restoration Plan was initiated by the Army Corps of Engineers.   Consisting of over 50 major projects to bring the Everglades back from the brink, the program has thus far mostly been a success.  It’s cost more than originally planned, but measurable progress has been made.

My question is, how much is the multi-billion dollar project worth to Floridians and Americans?  What I mean by that is, within a few decades, the Everglades will be sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean if nothing is done to slow down global warming.  Will those billions be wasted in trying to save the Everglades from fresh water flow problems while sea levels continue to rise?  How many more billions would Americans be willing to spend to build and maintain infrastructure to keep the sea water out of the Everglades?

We can continue rumbling down the dangerous path we’re on and refuse to take the threat of global warming seriously or we can choose to acknowledge the reality we’re facing and do something about it now, while we still can.


Leave a comment

21st Century Sea-Level Rise: More Than IPCC 4AR Projected

New research was published a few months ago that provides additional evidence that sea-level projections made by the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report are likely too conservative: sea-levels are more likely to be 1 meter higher than they were in 1990 (Vermeer and Rahmstorf), rather than only 0.5m higher, as projected by the IPCCs multi-model ensembles.

There was nothing inherently bad about the IPCC’s 4AR; I and others simply feel that their final report had to include more conservative estimates and projections in order for world governments to sign off on its language.  That does the world’s citizens an injustice, however.  In order to correctly assess risk, people need best- and worst-case scenarios available to them.  The most likely amount of sea-level rise by 2100 provided by the 4AR came out to between 0.2m and 0.6m.  Those estimates have implications to world societies, conservative though they were.  Additional implications will enter into our lives if there is 0.4-0.8m additional rise.

I want to stay on the IPCC projections for another moment.  The 2007 estimates included rates of sea level rise between 1980 to 1999 and 2090 to 2099 in metes and mm/yr.  The mm/yr rates in particular interest me because they allow for both the IPCC projections and the updated projections from the Vermeer and Rahmstorf paper to be placed in context with actual observations.  The six emissions scenarios examined by the IPCC had rates of 1.5, 2.1, 2.1, 1.7, 3.0 and 3.0mm/yr.  Satellite observations indicate that there has been approximately a +3.2mm/yr change in sea level (linear fit since 1993).  Only two IPCC emissions scenarios are close to the observed rate, and both of them underestimate them, albeit very slightly.  It is worth pointing out that the IPCC wrote:

The global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961-2003.

Averages over longer periods of time like this will, by nature of the averaging, tend to reduce extreme values that are small in number, as in the case of sea-level rise in the past 10 years or so.

Onto the new research findings.  Vermeer and Rahmstorf developed and tested an updated methodology to project future sea levels based on projected changes in temperature that was originally presented by Rahmstorf in a separate paper.  The original technique was based on the assumption that the sea level response time scale was long compared to the time scale of interest.  The updated technique allows for some sea level components to change quickly to a given temperature change.  The updated technique is shown to agree very well with historical data (82% of sea-level rate variance from the year 1000 to 2000).

Applying the technique to future conditions provides another potential case against which real-world observations can be compared.  By the year 2100, three different IPCC emissions scenarios generate a range of sea level projections: 1.0m, 1.2m and 1.4m, as the figure below (from the paper) shows.  That’s a big difference between the AR4 projections, using the same emissions scenarios, of 0.2-0.4m.  That extra potential meter of sea level rise will indeed have large implications across the world.

The figure shows the possible range of sea level rise values for 3 emissions scenarios considered by the IPCC: B1 in green, A2 in blue and A1F1 in yellow.  The observed emissions to date is represented by the red curve.  One important detail to note is our actual emissions rate is currently at the high end of all those considered by the IPCC (Copenhagen Diagnosis Figure 1, after Le Quere et al. 2009).

The IPCC projected a higher future rate of sea-level rise than was observed from 1961-2003.  1.8mm/yr equals 0.18m after a century (by linear extrapolation), slightly below the 0.2 minimum projected by all emissions scenarios.  Recent observations of 3.2mm/yr equals 0.32m after a century – well within the IPCC range, but well below the Vermeer and Rahmstorf range.  So what will it take to get 1.0-1.4m of sea level rise by 2100?  10mm-14mm/yr or 3-4X as much per year as is currently being observed.  There are some important details involved with that projection.  First of all, sea level change is not linear.  It varies year to year and decade to decade.  There has to be a transition from today’s 3.2mm/yr to the 10mm/yr necessary to achieve 1m sea level rise by 2100.  The rate of sea level rise would therefore have to increase over time.

Given the state of today’s atmosphere, oceans and cryosphere, a drastic change would have to occur for sea levels to rise by 10mm+ per year by the end of this century.  It is widely known that the IPCC’s science basis did not include a number of processes and feedbacks to the globes’ continental ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice (cryosphere).  Again, that wasn’t their fault – it just happens to be a weak link in the climate community’s research.  Work has been conducted since the IPCC 4AR to rectify those shortcomings.  Much more work will have to be done in the future.  Once that area is fleshed out further, I expect the IPCC’s projections to be more closely aligned with the leading research of today.

h/t RealClimate


1 Comment

Rising Sea Levels: Disappearing Islands & Underestimation

Word came yesterday of an island in the Bay of Bengal that has quietly slipped beneath rising seas.  New Moore Island was a rocky island that was 2 miles long and 1.5 miles wide.  This isn’t the first island to succumb to rising sea levels, nor will it be the last, especially since we continue to belch greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere.  Indeed, 10 additional islands in the same area continue to face submersion in the near future.  This news isn’t a surprise to any reputable scientist who has studied climate change, nor to any activist who has followed the state of the science.

Also unsurprisingly, Sen. James Inhofe’s family was not photographed on New Moore Island constructing a building in further efforts to misinform the fringe anti-science crowd.  I’m sure the lunatic Senator would cite his favorite conspiracy of global economic domination as the real topic to be discussed.  It wasn’t his island that disappeared, after all.  You’ll also note that the disappearing islands don’t garner much corporate media attention.  Since the stenographers look for controversy, there must be a lack of dimwits who are willing to go record disputing these events.

Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 247 other followers