72
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 05:11 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

If you're in the business of leading folk to safety George it is necessary to be morbid and to exaggerate. You're criticising a leopard for having spots.


The problem here is that these self-appointed "leaders" are leading us from a danger that doesn't exist to a "safe new world" that doesn't exist either - and doing so at huge cost and damage to our current lives and economy.

BTW; I'm constantly amazed at the public credulity of Brits on these matters. It's almost German.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 06:05 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
BTW; I'm constantly amazed at the public credulity of Brits on these matters. It's almost German.


I would guess that that distorted picture is being beamed into your noggin by a faction which consists of a very small proportion of our population.

In the highways and byways and the pubs and clubs you will never meet anybody who gives a flying **** about global ******* warming. Most of the good folks here would fry the planet for a novel experience. Seriously. I'm not exaggerating to make a point. It's a fact.

I would imagine it is the same in Germany. And in the US.

We put up with these control freaks stopping us mixing the broken bottles with the potato peelings and the textiles because if we didn't let them exercise their energies on that sort of thing they might get into other aspects of life. You have to realise George that glass waste is posher than organic waste and thus allows distinctions to be made in offices and their accoutrements.

A bit like on a big ship I suppose once the officers and men divide has got boring. An missile technologist having the jump on waste disposal experts for example. Killing things are posher than **** shifting.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 07:18 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
if rising levels screw things
What exactly do you think they will do ?

Quote:
Just to take one example, if rainfall patterns, snowmelt runoff and river and aquifer levels change drastically, which is one of the consequences of global warming (and already seems to be happening),
Are you aware that a lot of ancient cities are under water ? This is not man made. The oceans have been 5m higher and about 70m lower. Which will damage the Great Barrier Reef and other wet areas more ? Having high tide 70m lower, or low tide 5m higher ?

Quote:
which will see less rainfall on our most fertile cropland
I know you lack imagination because you have been Al Gored on the Global Warming horns of dilemma, but suppose, just suppose mind, that the earth gets colder. Which is more damaging ? The arctic opened up for shipping, Siberia and Cananda as farmland...OR.... a kilometer of ice over Moscow, Berlin, London, Paris, Beijing and Washington...which would you say is worse or will you hide from the obvious and say of course Global Freezing is NOT worse.

Actually Global Warming, if true, will see more frequent and more violent summer storms, not winter ones. So the rainfall will increase. We are living in a very mild weather pattern when compared to earth's history, especially from just before the last glacial advance, so if the weather gets wild it could be an indicator of another glacial advance. The weather has been suppresed by the delay in losing the remnants of the last Ice Age.
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:08 am
@Ionus,
Thank you, Ionus. You have pin pointed several important points.

It is manifestly clear that the global warmists are in full retreat. The East Anglia crowd's sleazy e-mails and the "loss" of the original evidence was the first nail in the coffin. The lid was tightened by the obvious disdain reported by the Chinese and Indian governments who, of course, complained that their "developing" countries would not comply with a draconian command from the UN's IPCC.
I am waiting to see if Barack Hussein Obama is foolish enough to press for "cap and trade" with these handicaps facing such a proposal. The fact that millions of jobs would be lost( adding to the horrendous 9.7%) if any "cap and trade" proposal were to become law, is probably the best reason why President Obama will not propose such a law, unless he is a totally committed Socialist. Is he?
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:14 am
@Ionus,
Ionus-
I am very much afraid that Monterey Jack knows very little about the actual report from the UN's own IPCC concerning "rising water levels". According to the last IPCC report, the IPCC estimated that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of this century( this was, of course, the estimation made before the horrendous foul up from the East Anglia IPCC scientists came to light). A one foot rise is not trivial but it is consistent with the sea-level rise since about 1860 and, it appears, there has been no real problem because of that latest one foot rise.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 08:33 am
I am very much afraid that Massagot knows very little about the most recent IPCC report or what's been learned since then, since he seems to be unaware that that median scenario predicates a carbon emissions target much lower than it looks like we're going to hit. He also seems to be unaware that the already existent sea level rise means storm surges start from a foot higher base than they used to, which means they reach further inland and do more damage.So once-in-a-century storms may become once-in-a-decade storms, which require much more protective defenses. He also seems to be unaware that the research conducted since the IPCC's FAR indicates that that median scenario of a further foot's rise is too optimistic and we can probably expect a far higher rise. Massagot also seems to be unaware that since we are not mitigating CO2 emissions, but are headed for the high end in the future scenarios, we can expect the high end of sea level rise, not the median scenario.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 08:42 am
Try a meter to 1.4 meter rise, Massagot.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207165252.htm
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:58 pm
An interesting read..
IPCC makes mistake in projecting rise in sea level

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
Try a one meter to 1.4 meter decrease ... or even a zero meter change in ocean levels over the next 30 years!
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:57 pm
that's why we call him "ican(when I'm short of facts I just invent them)711m"
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:02 pm
Did you notice, ican? It was announced today that satellite imagery and patrol investigation have confirmed that an entire island in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared, lost to rising waters due to global warming. Got a good alternative explanation? Care to explain how your fantasy sea level fall did it?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020131/ns/us_news-environment/
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 06:57 pm
@MontereyJack,
WHY ONLY THE BAY OF BENGAL?
Is the floor of the Bay of Bengal dropping?
Are the floors of other bays in the world not dropping?
Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020131/
NEW DELHI - For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island's gone.

New Moore Island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said.

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.

Scientists at the School of Oceanographic Studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.

Until 2000, the bay's sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, and erosion and mangrove destruction were also other contributing factors reshaping the bay.

But over the last decade sea levels in the bay have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.

Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara Island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra said.

"We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come under water," he said.



Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by global warming. Officials estimate 18 percent of Bangladesh's coastal area will be underwater and 20 million people will be displaced if sea levels rise 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2050 as projected by some climate models.

India and Bangladesh both claimed the empty New Moore Island, which was about 2 miles long, 1.5 miles wide and never stuck out more than six feet above water. Bangladesh referred to the island as South Talpatti.

There were no permanent structures on New Moore, but India sent some paramilitary soldiers to its rocky shores in 1981 to hoist its national flag.

The demarcation of the maritime boundary " and who controls the remaining islands " remains an open issue between the two South Asian neighbors, despite the disappearance of New Moore, said an official in India's foreign ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on international disputes.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:07 pm
@ican711nm,
Did global warming cause this Spring surprise?
Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36017029/ns/weather/
DENVER - A heavy, wet spring snowstorm forced airlines to cancel scores of flights at the Denver airport on Wednesday and left thousands of people without power.

Tree branches sagged and snapped under the weight of the snow. Dozens of schools canceled classes and the state Legislature declared a snow day, canceling House and Senate sessions as well as committee meetings.

By evening, the storm was headed east into the Oklahoma Panhandle and north Texas. Farther south, the system was expected to bring thunderstorms Wednesday night in Dallas.

Denver International Airport estimated up to 5,000 people spent Tuesday night there after their flights were canceled.

"This is my last time flying unless I grow wings," said Elizabeth Kinder of Great Falls, Mont., who slept in the airport's chapel.

She and her husband were flying home from San Jose, Calif., when they got stranded in Denver Tuesday night.

The airport's three busiest airlines " United, Frontier and Southwest " together canceled nearly 160 arrivals and departures Wednesday.

NBC affiliate KUSA-TV reported that the flight disruptions began Tuesday when planes were sitting too long on the tarmac after getting de-iced so they had to return to terminals and get de-iced again. That, in turn, caused the airport to put a hold on arrivals until the departure backlog was cleared.

Highway traffic was light for Denver's morning rush.

...

Spring blizzard
March 24: NBC's Leanne Gregg reports from Denver on the white surprise.
The Daily Rundown



"Some folks maybe decided they didn't have to travel, so they just stayed home," said Gene Towne of the Colorado Department of Transportation.

The National Weather Service said 23 inches of snow fell by Wednesday morning in Jefferson County west of Denver and about 9 inches in Denver.

Most major ski areas reported 5 to 7 inches of new snow. Eldora " just west of Boulder " reported 18 inches.

The storm boosted the mountain snowpack, which accounts for much of Colorado's water when it melts during the warm months. As of Wednesday, the snow totals were below average in the northern half of the state and roughly average in the south.

About 36,400 customers lost power at various times after snow started falling Tuesday, Xcel Energy spokesman Tom Henley said.

Most had electricity restored by the end of the business day. Snow dripped from utility poles and tree limbs as soon as the storm moved out.

Barbara Foley, 70, of Englewood rode the bus to work Wednesday in downtown Denver after she woke up to find about a foot of snow on her car. She was happy the bus arrived on time, with a driver in a good mood.

"I told the driver, 'You're just as good as the mailman,'" she said. "He said, 'No, lady, we're better.'"

In the mountains, U.S. 6 over Loveland Pass was closed for avalanche control and because of hazardous conditions. Farther west, Colorado 65 near Grand Junction also was closed for avalanche control.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:10 pm
Have they blamed Toyota's acceleration problems on AGW yet? You know it's just a matter of time LOL!
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:14 pm
I repeat
Quote:
that's why we call him "ican(when I'm short of facts I just invent them)711m"

We KNOW sea level is rising, ican. We know that the land around the Bay of Bengal lies within inches or feet of sea level. Do you have ANY evidence that the basin of the Bay of Bengal is dropping? Or is this another "fact" you made up on the fly? The people on the scene say sea level RIS due to global warming. Do you know better? Would you care to cite someone with some credibility to support your flight of fancy?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:28 pm
And re the Denver airport story. It's March. Denver is a mile high. It's cold. It's always cold in March. It's always colder than sea level. Snow storms in March are common. It's a WET snowstorm, also characteristic of late snowstorms. So what?

Did you pay any attention to the sentence in the story that says that snow pack so far this year in the area has been BELOW AVERAGE, which is whats gonna happen with global warming.

As I have told you repeatedly, thie is WEATHER. If you look only at weather you can't tell much about climate, so no, I'm not saying this says anything definitive about warming , however it is not atypical of Colorado weather, and you ignore the low snowpack indicative of low snowfall. So it does absolutely nothing to bolster your case(and the low snowpack, typical of recent years, I might add, which comes closer to a longterm climate trend, does not help you in the least).

Factor this into your analysis, ican:
Quote:
Recent Declines in Western U.S. Snowpack in the Context of Twentieth-Century Climate Variability

Gregory J. McCabe

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado

David M. Wolock

U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas


(Manuscript received 11 December 2008, in final form 8 August 2009, online 16 October 2009)

DOI: 10.1175/2009EI283.1

Options:

•Create Reference
•Email this Article
•Add to MyArchive
•Search AMS Glossary
Search CrossRef for:

•Articles Citing This Article

Search Google Scholar for:

•Gregory J. McCabe
•David M. Wolock

ABSTRACT
A monthly snow accumulation and melt model was used with monthly Precipitation-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) temperature and precipitation data to generate time series of 1 April snow water equivalent (SWE) for 1900 through 2008 in the western United States. Averaged across the western United States, SWE generally was higher than long-term (1900"2008) average conditions during the periods 1900"25, 1944"55, and 1966"82; SWE was lower than long-term average conditions during the periods 1926"43, 1957"65, and 1984"2008. During the period 1900"2008, the temporal pattern in winter precipitation exhibited wetter-than-average and drier-than-average decadal-scale periods with no long-term increasing or decreasing trend. Winter temperature generally was below average from 1900 to the mid-1950s, close to average from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s, and above average from the mid-1980s to 2008. In general, periods of higher-than-average SWE have been associated with higher precipitation and lower temperature. Since about 1980, western U.S. winter temperatures have been consistently higher than long-term average values, and the resultant lower-than-average SWE values have been only partially offset by periods of higher-than-average precipitation. The post-1980 lower-than-average SWE conditions in the western United States are unprecedented within the context of twentieth-century climate and estimated SWE.

KEYWORDS: Snow; Climate variability; Western United States




0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:36 pm
Notice particularly the last sentence of the abstract, ican.Higher than average temperature 1986-2008, unprecedented lower than average snowpack, same period in western US mountains. Long term trend. Sure sounds consistent with the data on climate change. Hmmmm, ican?
MASSAGAT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 12:00 am
@MontereyJack,
Mr. Monterey Jack---Why do you continue to show your massive ignorance about something which you obviously know little about?



Don't you know that one of the leaders of the IPCC(you do know what that is, of course), Professor Phil Jones from East Anglia has publicly stated to the BBC that:

l. there is a possiblity that the world was warmer in medieval times than now.

2. there has been no "statistically significant" warming during the past fifteen years

3. He admitted to losing track of key data- quote "We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but its probably not as good as it should be"
******************

Why don't you go to the sources--read the IPCC reports.


0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 12:04 am
@MontereyJack,
Where did you get your facts on sea level, Monterey Jack? I got mine from the source--the IPCC(UN) Report. It clearly states that the sea level will rise about a foot by 2100. Do you challenge that? That is not a large amount. In sea level has risen a foot since 1860 with no real problem anywhere.

Why don't you go to the sources and check it out.

Try Wikipedia which prints out the IPCC report. Note that I am referencing the UN organization which is a global warming believer!
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 12:17 am
@MontereyJack,
Well, Monterey Jack- are you always as sloppy in your research?

Note: from your own reference.

Sea Level Could Rise from 0.75 to 1.9 Meters This Century
ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2009) " A new scientific study warns that sea level could rise much faster than previously expected. By the year 2100, global sea level could rise between 75 and 190 centimetres, according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Now, read carefully, Monterey Jack--

l. This is at odds with the IPCC report in 2007, but if you want to discredit the UN IPCC report, go ahead. The UN IPCC report says a rise of one foot by 2100.

2. You are obviously either trying to be devious or you cannot read. Your reference states--COULD rise BETWEEN 75 and 190 centimeters.

Which is it? 75? 190? or a number in between?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Also:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 02/12/2025 at 04:11:10