Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by meyermm

... how is Holland going as they are mostly below ocean level are they ordering lifeboats and sand bags by the thousands.

Originally Posted by meyermm

... how is Holland going as they are mostly below ocean level are they ordering lifeboats and sand bags by the thousands.

Yes, in a manner of speaking, they are.

Dutch policymakers are addressing climate change with plans to heighten flood protection efforts throughout the country.

The increased risks by future sea level changes (observed & predicted) have prompted the creation of the Dutch Delta Committee. Governmentally assigned, and comprise of a team of experts, the committee produced a report in 2008 that investigated how to climate-proof the Netherlands for the next century. The report proposed a 100-year mega project, which included extending the coastline and building new surge barriers while fortifying the levees. An estimated 400 square miles is to be added to the Netherlands (or seventeen ‘Manhattans’) over the course of the project. Although, It is difficult to find concrete details on the design (the report is still only in Dutch), it is evident that it is a serious endeavour.

The aggressive plan comes with a high price tag; approximately 1.5 billion Euros per year for the next 100 years. Although this may at first seem absurd, we must remember that Hurricane Katrina caused an upwards of $150 USD billion of damage, not to mention the loss of life, crippled economics and tourism. Further, the Dutch are motivated to start early to reduce overall costs and potentially avoid disaster. Currently, the project is in its initial stages, but the Dutch Government has already allocated 50 million euros to the research initiative “Knowledge for Climate Proofing the Netherlands.” This organization is researching climate-proofing techniques and new international technologies.

➥ VROM - New research programme for a climate-proof Netherlands

➥ http://www.feweb.vu.nl/gis/research/...nformatics.pdf

[sneuman]

From this month's Cruising World:

Along the Northwest Passage, polar bears are coming ashore and into town in search of food because their diet is changing. ... And some villages, the two sailors note, are literally falling into the sea because without the permafrost, the land is crumbling and melting away.

Tales from the North - Cruising World

[rtbates]

Austin, Tx: 9º last week, 76º today... Been here since 73, never seen this before...

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As my memory serves, not one single lab' reported duplicating the Pons-Fleischmann results. It was quickly determined to be a botched experiment by numerous scientific laboratories.

My recollection was there were a few lab's reporting success, but many reporting failure; and most of those with reported success had problems with the Fleischman-Pons experiment. Even F and P couldn't replicate their result 100% of the time. Wikipedia has a good write-up on cold fusion. I know, I know, it's "Wikipedia" so you have to take it with a grain of salt, but the article seems well-researched and certainly comprehensive. It notes:

In September 1990, Fritz Will, Director of the National Cold Fusion Institute, compiled a list of 92 groups of researchers from 10 different countries that had reported excess heat, 3H, 4He, neutrons or other nuclear effects.[

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by bewitched

This is where I live. When it rains, my boat gets filthy from the pollution, I can look directly at the sun after 4pm, sometimes earlier. Health warnings are the norm - air quality levels are normally below what the WHO considers safe:
Attachment 12710
Attachment 12711

Part of a conspiracy to get me to pay more taxes you say? hmmm...interesting analysis

So under the Kyoto protocol, how much CO2 does China have to cut?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So under the Kyoto protocol, how much CO2 does China have to cut?

This is the kind of argument I hear a lot, at least after the others have been exhausted, which proves to me that among deniers, it's more about the political and economic factors than the science.

The progression usually goes something like this:

1) Global warming is a hoax cooked up by governments and scientists
2) Ok, so the planet is warming, but there's no proof that humans are responsible ...
3) but wait, those emails prove it's all a hoax.
4) well, ok, maybe they don't
5) I hate Al Gore
6) Who is going to pay for this? Cutting greenhouse gases will BANKRUPT us all!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by bewitched

CO2 is really bad stuff. Man made emissions per year are around 30 billion tons.

CO2 is not really bad stuff. We expire the stuff. Plants need it to grow. It is a naturally-occurring gas.

I've heard the IPCC is quoting something on the order of 27 billion tonnes as man's yearly emissions, but have heard other amounts quoted - even as little as 6 billion tonnes. A reliable source calculated 8.5 tonnes for 2007, so I would assume it's grown a bit since then, but not threefold. So who are we supposed to believe?

Reliable source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory - CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by sneuman

This is the kind of argument I hear a lot, at least after the others have been exhausted, which proves to me that among deniers, it's more about the political and economic factors than the science.

The progression usually goes something like this:

1) Global warming is a hoax cooked up by governments and scientists
2) Ok, so the planet is warming, but there's no proof that humans are responsible ...
3) but wait, those emails prove it's all a hoax.
4) well, ok, maybe they don't
5) I hate Al Gore
6) Who is going to pay for this? Cutting greenhouse gases will BANKRUPT us all!

Exactly. The question of whether "global climate change is occurring and if it is man-made" is a proxy argument for "what should we do about it". There is no way anyone on this forum who is not an atmospheric climate scientist can have an opinion about the science that anyone else could possibly be interested in hearing. We as citizens can have an opinion of what to do about it though, so instead of being honest and arguing the merits of trying to reduce the man-made part of the climate change we just argue that it doesn't exist.

This makes us feel better because arguing to do nothing in the face of a pretty wide-scale societal change that will occur all over the globe feels bad to us. Even though there are some reasonable arguments to be made that all of the proposals to limit climate change will cause as much or more disruption then the change itself if we prepare for it appropriately it is easier to deny the science then be intellectually honest about what is truly on the table.

And for all you that disregard the consensus of every major climate science group, panel or gathering I am particularly interested in your "opinion" of whether quarks are really the basic building block of the atom or are prions more important. And while you are at it next hurricane season be sure to analyze the hurricane data yourself to determine the path and the likelihood you need to add that extra dock line to your boat, you certainly don't want to trust scientists with important information like that.

Jim

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So under the Kyoto protocol, how much CO2 does China have to cut?

None.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries (including the People’s Republic of China) are not required to reduce emission levels, unless developed countries supply enough funding and technology.

Industrialized country (Annex 1) targets (5.2% average) range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others, to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."

Some opponents of the Convention argue that the split between Annex I and developing countries is unfair, and that both developing countries and developed countries need to reduce their emissions unilaterally.

Some countries claim that their costs of following the Convention requirements will stress their economy. This was one reason given by George W. Bush, for not forwarding the Kyoto Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification.

Other countries point to research, such as the Stern Report, that calculates the cost of compliance to be less than the cost of the consequences of doing nothing.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

CO2 is not really bad stuff. We expire the stuff. Plants need it to grow. It is a naturally-occurring gas.

I've heard the IPCC is quoting something on the order of 27 billion tonnes as man's yearly emissions, but have heard other amounts quoted - even as little as 6 billion tonnes. A reliable source calculated 8.5 tonnes for 2007, so I would assume it's grown a bit since then, but not threefold. So who are we supposed to believe?

Reliable source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory - CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report

In minute doses, flouride prevents tooth decay and is otherwise harmless. In larger doses, it is deadly.

For billions of years, the earth has been sequestering carbon underground in the form of decayed organic matter. In the course of 100 or so years, we have reversed the process on an increasingly massive scale.

This is the problem.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by jkleins

Exactly. The question of whether "global climate change is occurring and if it is man-made" is a proxy argument for "what should we do about it". There is no way anyone on this forum who is not an atmospheric climate scientist can have an opinion about the science that anyone else could possibly be interested in hearing. We as citizens can have an opinion of what to do about it though, so instead of being honest and arguing the merits of trying to reduce the man-made part of the climate change we just argue that it doesn't exist.

This makes us feel better because arguing to do nothing in the face of a pretty wide-scale societal change that will occur all over the globe feels bad to us. Even though there are some reasonable arguments to be made that all of the proposals to limit climate change will cause as much or more disruption then the change itself if we prepare for it appropriately it is easier to deny the science then be intellectually honest about what is truly on the table.

And for all you that disregard the consensus of every major climate science group, panel or gathering I am particularly interested in your "opinion" of whether quarks are really the basic building block of the atom or are prions more important. And while you are at it next hurricane season be sure to analyze the hurricane data yourself to determine the path and the likelihood you need to add that extra dock line to your boat, you certainly don't want to trust scientists with important information like that.

Jim

Very well said.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

From this month's Cruising World:

Along the Northwest Passage, polar bears are coming ashore and into town in search of food because their diet is changing. ... And some villages, the two sailors note, are literally falling into the sea because without the permafrost, the land is crumbling and melting away.

Tales from the North - Cruising World

So you want us to believe the average annual temperature in the Arctic has gone up by about 10°C? This is the problem with lay people presenting anecdotal "evidence" as proof of a preconceived notion. Here's a primer on permafrost: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic2-1-13.pdf

Polar bears always come ashore during the summer ice break-up. They've been coming into towns as long as there have been towns. There have been more sightings of bears, because there are more polar bears; they are not in any danger of dying out.

This is the kind of argument I hear a lot, at least after the others have been exhausted, which proves to me that among deniers, it's more about the political and economic factors than the science.

And this is the typical response heard from the warmists. Kyoto was just a money-grab; it did nothing to reduce total CO2 production. So can you see why some of us are just a little bit suspicious about the motivation behind the fear-mongering?

[Highlander40]

I want to know if there is a corelation between the CO2 level/ pollution and the amount of crap on our boats.

Boaters for cleaner boats! Its that simple.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

So you want us to believe the average annual temperature in the Arctic has gone up by about 10°C? This is the problem with lay people presenting anecdotal "evidence" as proof of a preconceived notion. Here's a primer on permafrost: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic2-1-13.pdf

...
And this is the typical response heard from the warmists. Kyoto was just a money-grab; it did nothing to reduce total CO2 production. So can you see why some of us are just a little bit suspicious about the motivation behind the fear-mongering?

The retreat of arctic ice is beyond dispute. If you need a concrete example -- small boats are routinely making the "northwest passage" now - and that has almost never happened before.

As Jkleins so eloquently pointed out, none of us here is qualified to debate the science.

The politics of Kyodo - or any climate deal - are understandable and predictable. No nation wants to agree to anything that would place them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis another.

But that says nothing about the science of whether or not climate change is happening. By confusing the science with the politics, if anything, your motivations are called into question.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jkleins

And for all you that disregard the consensus of every major climate science group, panel or gathering I am particularly interested in your "opinion" of whether quarks are really the basic building block of the atom or are prions more important. And while you are at it next hurricane season be sure to analyze the hurricane data yourself to determine the path and the likelihood you need to add that extra dock line to your boat, you certainly don't want to trust scientists with important information like that.

Jim

Maybe it's just the mad cow disease acting up, but I think you mean 'preons'.

There is no consensus. Please stop suggesting there is.

Even if we removed every ounce of CO2 from the atmosphere, there would still be hurricanes. We'd be extinct, as would all life on Earth, but there would still be hurricanes.