The Sky is Falling....The Sky is Falling.

I know absolutely nobody who believes we are in any kind of danger, and only two people who think AGW is real.

Most think it is a ripoff that the politicians are going to use to try and tax us more one way or the other.

They would be right too.

The msm will not stop...they have an agenda, simple as that, let alone even when they are proven wrong, like all good little leftist they never admit it.

I just do not pay that much attention anymore, most likely will the closer we get to election though, it will be interesting for the conservative side of the aisle, and it will make a difference on who I vote for too.

So AP and all the rest of your ilk in all walks of life with your agenda's...blow all the hot air you want, I could care less.

This is good news!!  My house in Alexandria and some property I have in GA may be beach front.  That helps my resale value!!

http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/

I find it simply amazing how our funny little liberal friends are frightened to death by this phantom phenomenon, but have so far demonstrated no healthy public fear over the very real object of our nightmares: Islamic fundamentalism. Mr. Gore's flim flam carbon credit scam isn't going to be worth diddly squat if terrorists set off nuclear devices in the U.S., or if Iran manages to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. How do you "offset" nuclear fallout, Mr. Gore? For our sake, put you ample money where your even ampler mouth is and start battling our most urgent problem!  Then maybe, MAYBE I will listen to that other minor concern of yours.

I was so outraged by the article that I hit "add new comment" without checking out all the others!  Yours point was extremely well made.  It just proves that we know what the left's ultimate motive is, and we have to be the real and rational voice in this debate.  I'm tired of liberals endangering our lives!

NBC News reported Monday that Greenland's ice sheets are melting so quickly that it "could ignite worldwide disaster," the Associated Press on Saturday cautioned that "In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased."

Okay, let's take a look at this claim. The earth's surface is roughly 200,000,000 square miles, and about 70 percent of that is water (the world's oceans). So that's about 140,000,000 square miles of water.

It is estimated that the Greenland ice sheet is losing water at the rate of about 50 cubic miles per year (using satellite gravity measurement techniques). Assuming the rate holds steady, that's 5000 cubic miles per century.

The rise in sea level from this amount of water would be 5000 cu-mi / 140,000,000,000 sq-mi = 0.000036 miles.

0.000036 miles x 5280 feet / mile = 0.19 feet

0.19 feet x 12 inches / foot = 2.3 inches

So, according to these bozos, a rise in sealevel worldwide of 2.3 inches will submerge most of the east and west coasts of the U.S. This is obviously a copious amount of fresh horse dung.

What is probably more interesting is why these people continue to propagate nonsense: are they ignorant, stupid, or evil? It's gotta be one of the three, I can't imagine any other possibilities.

"This raises an important question: Just how much worse can this situation get?"

The answer may be in how much lower their ratings go. To me there seems to be a direct correlation between the MSM's declining market share and their increased hysteria over this particular issue as well as others they hold near and dear to their hearts. They have become fanatics.

Reminds me of the tale of the woodcutter who didn't take time to sharpen his axe (or in the case of the press, check the facts). Over time, his burden became greater, his efforts more labored. His results more insignificant. Finally the day arrived when he could cut no more.  

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.  ~ Unknown

and see you already have more up - man you are prolific!

However, I fail to see how you get from Seth Borenstein`s AP post to your assertion that "media are clearly putting on a full-court press to scare Americans into believing the world will quickly come to an end if we don't start doing exactly what soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore tells us", or to calling it "totally inexcusable" "fear-mongering" and an "abomination" offering "hysterical projections". Borenstein`s post is very clear that he is summarizing what sea level rises scientists think will happen in a century or so, irregardless of what we do now. Did you miss these quotes?

"We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what—the question is when."

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

And far from "hysterical projections", Borenstein makes no mention at all of James Hansen`s concerns about the accelerated melting in Greenland that was not factored into the latest IPCC report, and in fact concludes with a note that John Christy, "a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case."

Why do you paint what John Christy or the other scientists say here as hysteria, or the piece as a whole for the proposition that we have to start what Gore says, or that doing so will stop what scientists see as an unavoidable meter sea level rise over the next century?

Wouldn`t a more accurate take be to note that adaptation will cost money, and money spent on trying to slow climate change will have no effect, at least for this currently built-in sea level rise?

And as to why the increased level of reporting on climate change matters, I imagine you are aware of the various meetings this week that the US will participate in and host, and the deal announced yesterday to finally eliminate production of CFCs (which you suggested in your last note to me that the "leftists" don`t care about)? http://abcnews.go.co...

Is there nothing here praiseworthy in your view? If not, when will you devote equal tiome to raking the Bush administration over the coals

Regards,

A Curious BlindSight

"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.

Noel:

"It is indeed a sad commentary that three years after CBS News intentionally presented a fraudulent Air National Guard memo during an installment of "60 Minutes," the professionalism and ethics in this industry have actually deteriorated even further." [emphasis mine]

Off topic, but you're not suggesting CBS knowingly used false documents, are you?

Jer

The lost of Louisiana's wetlands is less an issue of rising sea levels. As there apparently hasn't been that much lately. Unless you adjust the data with that sinking guage in Hong Kong.

Rather it's an old problem and has to do with the nature of delta geology.

The Mississippi River delta and south Louisiana are sinking. The geology changes near my home. And you can tell driving down I-10 when you make the transition. And the very levees we've built to protect us have aggravated the problem.

The Inconvenient truth.

Louisiana  1743

Louisiana Mississippi Coast 1768

Louisiana 1863

The LSU chart room has an old French map. It shows Bayou Lafourche with a pronounced crow foot. (It was the old channel of the Mississippi.) That crow foot was long gone before I was born and even long before the USGS 1930 series maps of the area.

Another hype shot to ----.

Of course de Nile has the same problem. The fact that Cheopatras Alexandria is deep under the Mediterranian. Maybe AGW goes back to the Romans. All those chariots.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Right now I live about 45 miles from the NC coast. Our elevation is about 38' above sea level. Contrast that to my daughter who lives about 10 miles from the ocean in Pensacola. The elevation there is about 60'.

I guess I need to get out of here and get down to Florida. 

Aren't parts of the CA coastline above sea level? You see the hills next to the beach all the time.

Do I look worried? Not in the least. This article is total BS. By the way, I have always wanted to live on the beach.

Here's one other thing to think about, Marine Corps Air Staion Cherry Point, New River Air Station and Camp Lejuene are even lower in elevation than here. I don't hear politicians talking about moving them out of harms way. If GW is happening there is no way we can stop it.

Plans need to be made to evacuate the US coastline NOW! Ray Nagan needs to get those flooded school buses ready and get the hell out of NO by the end of this week because they are below sea level.

 A bona fide and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.

I'm looking at a 30+ year old Replogle globe of the Earth. I see a very distinct seaway around the Arctic including Amundsen Gulf and open water all the way to Baffin Island.  Didn't I just read that this was going to happen by 2020? Looks like the folks at Replogle could predict and accurately map it 30+ years ago. Hmmm.

We know the Antarctic ice mass is actually increasing at this point, so leave any mention of that out of the news.

So we must focus on Greenland (don't let those Viking settlements under the ice fool you).

As to the Arctic ice cap, don't mention to anyone that the ice cap is actually floating , it will spoil the scary story.

I'm new here.  Have I missed the discussion of the beach front property that the Clinton's were to be purchasing in Costa Rica, or was that my imagination?  I guess they don't care what it's value will be in 50 years when it's underwater? Or are they not "true believers?"

I do know that Christy is a skeptic who nevertheless publicly supports the IPCC process and conclusions, even though his expectations for climate change have consistently trailed his peers. I also know that Christy's expectation for sea level change (16 inches/century is about 4 mm/yr.) is even greater than the accelerated rate of 3.2 mm/yr. over the past decade (precisely measured by satellites), which is greater than the 1.8 mm/yr over the past century, and that the average rate of change from 2000 years ago to about 100 years ago was near zero. See the Frasier Institute's "Independent Summary for Policymakers" prepared by Ross McKittrick and others.
http://www.uoguelph....

I also know that Christy advocates getting ready for a changed climate and for climate risks as a more cost-effective approach than trying to mitigate. I also recognize that that is essentially the message that Borenstein conveyed, even though the scientists he quoted said that they expected an increase of about 2.5 times (not 10 or 100) that of Christy. That hardly seems like hysteria, and certainly not a message to jump on the Al Gore bandwagon to immediately change our energy policy.

However, I would agree that Borenstein should have specifically noted that the one-meter rise that the scientists were mentioning was outside of that the ranges projected by the IPCC. It would have been useful to have more of discussion of the reasons for that - such as new information on ice sheet dynamics. Perhaps he should have also provided more balance by citing to others who are more optimistic than Christy, as well as to others who are more pessimistic.

I also recognize, as much as I disfavor any government action, that unlike other resources that free and fair markets can allocate efficiently and create wealth, no one owns the atmosphere, so markets do not reflect either the value of the air or the costs associated with economic behavior that affects climate. But this is a point that I made on the methane thread and that you, as an economist, should already be fully aware of anyway. This is what that underlies the support of famous Republican economists like Greg Mankiw (and other Nobel Prize winning economists) to support carbon taxes and they certainly are serious and don't seem to view climate change or related policy as a "game".

By the way, did you notice the EPA's recent release, trumpeting the fact that the EC has joined the EPA's "Methane to Markets Partnership", which is an international initiative to reduce global methane emissions through multilateral cooperation - and that none of the MSM seem interested? http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1ef7cd36224b565785257359003f533f/416074351d70350c85257360004b6bc8!OpenDocument

Is this a type of measure that you can support?

Regards,

20/20 Blind

"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.