Glow-Bull Warming Update...

[GarMan]

Another study... 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/04/scigore104.xml

An Inconvenient Truth exaggerated sea level rise
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 7:01pm BST 04/09/2008

Al Gore's Oscar-winning environmental documentary exaggerated the likely effects of global warming on sea levels, a new study shows.

The film, An Inconvenient Truth, suggested that the sea would rise up to 20ft "in the near future" as the ice in Greenland or Western Antarctica melts.

Other documentaries have picture Britain deluged with water, showing the House of Commons submerged.

However, while some mainstream predictions project sea levels 2 to 4 meters higher by 2100, a new study published today in Science concludes that a rise in sea level between 0.8 and 2 meters is much more likely.

While scientists agree that sea levels rose by six inches over the course of the 20th century, estimates of future rises remain hazy, mostly because there are many uncertainties, from the lack of data on what ice sheets did in the past to predict how they will react to warming, insufficient long-term satellite data to unpick the effects of natural climate change from that caused by man and a spottiness in the degree to which places such as Antarctica have warmed.

Prof Tad Pfeffer at University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Joel Harper at University of Montana and Dr Shad O'Neel at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, reached these conclusions after studying the ice and water being discharged from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

"We simply don't understand the physics of ice dynamics well enough to make accurate model predictions," says Dr Harper. "There are just too many uncertainties. So what we did is flip the problem on its head."

Unlike most past studies that try to add up the individual sources of ice and water discharge from the glaciers into the sea, their experiment calculated how much ice and water lost from Greenland and Antarctica that it would take for the world's seas to raise two meters.

Then they calculated how fast contributing glaciers would need to move in order to dump that much ice into the sea.

Their findings show that predictions of a two meter rise in sea level by 2100 would require significantly faster ice velocities from Greenland and Antarctica than has ever been reported before.

"We found you would need to have phenomenal calving, (calving is what happens when ice sheets meet the ocean and break apart to form icebergs)" said Dr Harper, who has lived and worked on the Greenland ice cap the past two summers, studying the increased melting there.

So if the glaciers continue to break up and melt like they are right now for 100 years, a two meter rise in sea level by 2100 would not be possible. For the Greenland ice sheet to do this, the glaciers moving into the island's calving fjords would have to increase their speed to 28.4 miles per year and sustain that speed until the end of the century.

For that reason, Prof Pfeffer and his colleagues argue that current projections of sea level rise should be updated to include more realistic rates of glacier break-up and melting in Greenland and Antarctica. They argue that their projection of as little as 0.8 meter rise in sea level by 2100 is much more realistic.

While the inflated rates often quoted by environmentalists are not completely out of the question, the authors argue that they should not be adopted as a central working hypothesis.

However, a rise of just a metre or more would wipe out the Norfolk Broads and the Wash, boosting the risk of devastating storm surges. And the new estimate does exceed that of thee latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projects between 18 to 60 centimetres (7.2 to 24 inches) of sea level rise by 2100.

Dr David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey, commented: "while lower than a few of the wilder projections made by a fringe of activists, a rise of 0.8 to 2.0 metre in a century would cause enormous loss of life in the developing world and enormous cost in the developed world.

"These are big numbers, higher than the IPCC projections that governments generally use as the basis for policy-making."

[Saniflush]

You just hate polar bears.

[GarMan]

You just hate polar bears.

Well actually, properly aged polar bear steaks with a red wine reduction sauce is absolutely delicious.  Don't even get me started on baby seal carpaccio... 

[Tarheel]

"We simply don't understand the physics of ice dynamics well enough to make accurate model predictions," says Dr Harper. "There are just too many uncertainties.

Wow, I can't believe that a scientist actually admitted that on this subject.  I thought that there was certainty as to the predicted glacial melt and the rise in ocean levels based on some "studies".  Here's what NatGeo had to say as recently as 2004 (during the mid-years of the evil Bush Administration):

...
However, the biggest danger, many experts warn, is that global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically. Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
...
Glaciers and sea ice in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are already melting at a rapid pace, placing animals like polar bears at risk.

"Polar bears are entirely dependent on sea ice," Malcolm said. "You lose sea ice, you lose polar bears."

So far, the rise in sea level is because warmer water takes up more room than colder water, which makes sea levels go up, a process known as thermal expansion.

"The real question is what's going to happen to Greenland and Antarctica," Stouffer said. "That's where the bulk of all the fresh water is tied up."

A recent Nature study suggested that Greenland's ice sheet will begin to melt if the temperature there rises by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). That is something many scientists think is likely to happen in another hundred years.

The complete melting of Greenland would raise sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). But even a partial melting would cause a one-meter (three-foot) rise. Such a rise would have a devastating impact on low-lying island countries, such as the Indian Ocean's Maldives, which would be entirely submerged.

Full article:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html

This conclusion corresponds with Al Gore's conclusion.  Clearly, we're doomed.

While the inflated rates often quoted by environmentalists are not completely out of the question, the authors argue that they should not be adopted as a central working hypothesis.

Did anyone consult with Al Gore on this? 

I think that these authors probably work for Big Oil.

[Tarheel]

Well actually, properly aged polar bear steaks with a red wine reduction sauce is absolutely delicious.  Don't even get me started on baby seal carpaccio... 

Elitist snob!


What kind of cigar finishes well with polar bear steaks?

[GarMan]

What kind of cigar finishes well with polar bear steaks?

I always prefer a strong maduro (Padron, OpusX or Ashton's San Cristobal) with a glass of 18 year old Scotch, but that's just how I roll.  You might prefer a Helix Remix with a Kool-Aid squeezebox. 

[Tarheel]

I always prefer a strong maduro (Padron, OpusX or Ashton's San Cristobal) with a glass of 18 year old Scotch, but that's just how I roll.  You might prefer a Helix Remix with a Kool-Aid squeezebox.  

 

[Saniflush]

Elitist snob!


What kind of cigar finishes well with polar bear steaks?

Tipped Swisher Sweet with a bottle of MD20/20.

[Tarheel]

Tipped Swisher Sweet with a bottle of MD20/20.

 


"Fuck you, Howard..."

[Saniflush]

"Fuck you, Howard..."

The key is you gotsa be care to not be bruising the fruits.

[kirkAU]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

now this is a solution to Glo-BULL warming:

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.

However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'

Pachauri can expect some vociferous responses from the food industry to his advice, though last night he was given unexpected support by Masterchef presenter and restaurateur John Torode, who is about to publish a new book, John Torode's Beef. 'I have a little bit and enjoy it,' said Torode. 'Too much for any person becomes gluttony. But there's a bigger issue here: where [the meat] comes from. If we all bought British and stopped buying imported food we'd save a huge amount of carbon emissions.'

Tomorrow, Pachauri will speak at an event hosted by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming, which has calculated that if the average UK household halved meat consumption that would cut emissions more than if car use was cut in half.

The group has called for governments to lead campaigns to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. Campaigners have also pointed out the health benefits of eating less meat. The average person in the UK eats 50g of protein from meat a day, equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop - a relatively low level for rich nations but 25-50 per cent more than World Heath Organisation guidelines.

Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who will also speak at tomorrow's event in London, said government could help educate people about the benefits of eating less meat, but it should not 'regulate'. 'Eating less meat would help, there's no question about that, but there are other things,' Watson said.

However, Chris Lamb, head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX, said the meat industry had been unfairly targeted and was working hard to find out which activities had the biggest environmental impact and reduce those. Some ideas were contradictory, he said - for example, one solution to emissions from livestock was to keep them indoors, but this would damage animal welfare. 'Climate change is a very young science and our view is there are a lot of simplistic solutions being proposed,' he said.

Last year a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating by the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University claimed livestock generated 8 per cent of UK emissions - but eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing. It also said vegetarian diets that included lots of milk, butter and cheese would probably not noticeably reduce emissions because dairy cows are a major source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas released through flatulence.

I've decided to eat at least two steaks a day now.

[GarMan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

now this is a solution to Glo-BULL warming:

I've decided to eat at least two steaks a day now.

What a bunch of clowns...  Even if everyone followed this, the net effect would be insignificant.  Of course, this assumes that the wild-assed assertion that man's activities are responsible for climate trends of the planet, but speaking of flatulence... 

[kirkAU]

What a bunch of clowns...  Even if everyone followed this, the net effect would be insignificant.  Of course, this assumes that the wild-assed assertion that man's activities are responsible for climate trends of the planet, but speaking of flatulence... 

oh, is it not true...?  i coulda sworn al gore never lied.  not like he is making money off of saving the planet

[Saniflush]

I got this far

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

when I realized I could quit reading.

[GarMan]

I got this far when I realized I could quit reading.

Check the name and his origin...  "Everybody loves curry!" 

[Tarheel]

I got this far when I realized I could quit reading.

 

[Saniflush]

"Have you ever been kamicly bitch slapped by an eight armed goddess?  I take that as a no."

[kirkAU]

i'll believe the farmer's almanac anyday over the UN and al gore

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm

DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.

"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.

For the near future, the Almanac predicts most of the country will be colder than normal in the coming winter, with heavy snow from the Ozarks into southern New England. Snow also is forecast for northern Texas, with a warmer than usual winter in the northern Plains.

Almanac believers will prepare for a hot summer in much of the nation's midsection, continuing drought conditions there and wild fire conditions in parts of California, with a cooler-than-normal season elsewhere. They'll also keep the car packed for the 2009 hurricane season, as the Alamanac predicts an active one, especially in Florida.

But Editor Janice Stillman said it's the winter foreasts that attract the most attention, especially this year, with much higher heating prices.

[GarMan]

i'll believe the farmer's almanac anyday over the UN and al gore

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm

WITCHCRAFT!!!  Everybody knows that only Liberal "scientists" can guess predict future weather cycles... 

[kirkAU]

witchcraft!?!?....BURN HIM!!!!....oh...wait