Hi all. I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
> Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion.
I would think the extent of coastal innundation depends on elevation, gradient of the shore i.e. the gentler the slope, the further water invades inland, individual weather/Enso events, etc. The impacts would also depend on the buffer between houses and the sea in the future. I personally would be reluctant to invest a lot of money in a house very close to the beach (despite the awesome views) because of how much the sea eats away into the beach during individual severe wx events such as ECL's... let alone sea level rises caused by climate change. There's been big chunks of quite a few backyards and fences that have fallen into the sea around here during strong ECL's from too little buffer.
> the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us.
I think that's more to do with the media and how they portray a lot of things out of context rather than the debate itself.
P.S. interesting thunderstorm environment down your way today Clyve. The amount of deep moisture & cape down there looks pretty impressive... will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message ----- From: Clyve Herbert To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
----- Original Message ----- From: Lindsay Smail To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message ----- From: Clyve Herbert To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people
correct me if I'm wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see
rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp
sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So,
realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in
the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up
more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the
area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the
ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of
water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and
ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I
mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another
story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much
that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to
continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly
informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow
what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is
a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert <mailto:mes...@iprimus.com.au>
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and
up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year
not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of
Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast
will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal
Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by
someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the
back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole
process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened
by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding
expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate
debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are
telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
>Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
Remember that much of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets sit ABOVE sea level, so the majority of melt water from these sources is going to add to the volume of the oceans.
> 8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than > water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be > arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in > the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then > melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So > with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and > therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Don't forget the ice sitting above sea level (i.e. on land, not floating). :)
>Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
>Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes >100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly >covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not >including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
>So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
The Antarctic ise sheet covers the whole continent and is (I believe, if I recall correctly) around 2 miles thick over most of the continent. Greenland is somewhat smaller, but still a decent ice sheet sitting above sea level.
RE Melbourne storms - Very pronounced Hook on behind the front - 64Km radar
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So,
realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in
the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up
more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the
area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the
ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of
water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and
ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I
mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another
story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much
that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to
continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly
informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow
what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is
a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert <mailto:mes...@iprimus.com.au>
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and
up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year
not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of
Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast
will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal
Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by
someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the
back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole
process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened
by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding
expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate
debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are
telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
>Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
Yeah, just copped some rain here at Laverton. The lightning active parts of the storm passed to the north and south, and it was spectacular as it rolled in. Just got home as the rain started falling! :) Getting a few rumbles, but nothing real close.
There's 2 main causes of global sea level rise. A warmer world causes thermal expansion of the water in the oceans and I believe contributes to about half of the sea level rise at the moment (this is the factor that often gets overshadowed by the more well known ice-melt factor). The other cause is all the extra water from melting glaciers/ice sheets on land adding to the volume of the oceans. One figure I've seen indicates the amount of ice in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is such, that if both were to completely melt, it would incease global sea level by about 70m.
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
----- Original Message ----- From: Lindsay Smail To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert <BR<BR
Yep there's also that factor Marcus in addition to the thermal expansion of water and glacial melt. The earth's snow/ice cover is responsible for reflecting a lot of solar radiation back out into space (the albedo figure is about 0.3 or 30% of the total radiation if i remember correctly). As more snow/ice melts, the ability of the planet to reflect this solar radiation into space reduces, more of it gets absorbed and warms the atmosphere, causing further ice melt, etc. This is one of the positive feedback mechanisms with global warming in which you can reach a certain point where nothing can stop the viscious cycle.
Ken.
Hi Bussy,
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people correct me if I’m wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert <BR<BR
-----Original Message-----
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Tony Langdon
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 11:03 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Storms! (was Re: Political weather catastrophes)
At 10:55 PM 10/30/2009, you wrote:
>Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
Yeah, just copped some rain here at Laverton. The lightning active parts of the storm passed to the north and south, and it was spectacular as it rolled in. Just got home as the rain started falling! :) Getting a few rumbles, but nothing real close.
Being very much a lay man, from memory a volcanic eruption - from a super
volcano around 1100-1400 AD -ish in china caused massive global cooling for
two years. The River Tems froze and all sorts of things happened.
Say we reach that certain point; could a similar eruption re stabilize to
current temps for a period?
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ken Kato
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 11:26 PM
To: Austpacwx
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Yep there's also that factor Marcus in addition to the thermal expansion of
water and glacial melt. The earth's snow/ice cover is responsible for
reflecting a lot of solar radiation back out into space (the albedo figure
is about 0.3 or 30% of the total radiation if i remember correctly). As more
snow/ice melts, the ability of the planet to reflect this solar radiation
into space reduces, more of it gets absorbed and warms the atmosphere,
causing further ice melt, etc. This is one of the positive feedback
mechanisms with global warming in which you can reach a certain point where
nothing can stop the viscious cycle.
Ken.
_____
Hi Bussy,
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people
correct me if I'm wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see
rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp
sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So,
realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in
the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up
more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the
area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the
ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of
water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and
ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I
mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another
story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much
that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to
continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly
informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow
what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is
a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert <mailto:mes...@iprimus.com.au>
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and
up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year
not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of
Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast
will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal
Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by
someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the
back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole
process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened
by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding
expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate
debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are
telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
I wouldn't be too worried about the 'glaziers' on Greenland. Althought they can be a real 'pane', and they are prime suspects, they have 'framed' in the past, but most times, you can usually see through what they are up to! : )
________________________________
From: Marcus <mawint...@gmail.com>
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 30 October, 2009 10:55:56 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Bussy,
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people correct me if I’m wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From:austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
----- Original Message ----- >From:Lindsay Smail >To:austpacwx@googlegroups.com >Sent:Friday, October 30, 2009 8:08 PM
>Subject:[austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
>
>Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
>
>----- Original Message ----- >From:Clyve Herbert >>To:austpacwx@googlegroups.com >>Sent:Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
>>Subject:[austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
>>
>>Hi all.
>>I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert >><BR<BR
___________________________________________________________________________ _______
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
I don't know too much about eruptions when it comes to feedback mechanisms, except that massive eruptions can have a measurable effect on global temps e.g. Krakatoa, Mt Pinatubo (decrease of around 0.5C was one figure I think I remember)... also caused amazingly red sunsets around the world for a year or two. I could be wrong but I suspect unless a future eruption is big enough, the world might resume warming (because of the greenhouse gases already existing in the atmosphere before the eruption... and not enough being reabsorbed into cooler oceans after the eruption) after the ash settles out of the atmosphere.
I also don't know that much about any freezing over of the Thames River during the 1100-1400 AD period - I'm more familiar with the freeze-overs during the Little Ice Age a few centuries later which allowed Londoners to ice skate on it.
Ken.
Ken,
Being very much a lay man, from memory a volcanic eruption – from a super volcano around 1100-1400 AD -ish in china caused massive global cooling for two years. The River Tems froze and all sorts of things happened.
Say we reach that certain point; could a similar eruption re stabilize to current temps for a period?
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Kato
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 11:26 PM
To: Austpacwx
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Yep there's also that factor Marcus in addition to the thermal expansion of water and glacial melt. The earth's snow/ice cover is responsible for reflecting a lot of solar radiation back out into space (the albedo figure is about 0.3 or 30% of the total radiation if i remember correctly). As more snow/ice melts, the ability of the planet to reflect this solar radiation into space reduces, more of it gets absorbed and warms the atmosphere, causing further ice melt, etc. This is one of the positive feedback mechanisms with global warming in which you can reach a certain point where nothing can stop the viscious cycle.
Ken.
Hi Bussy,
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people correct me if I’m wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert <BR<BR
</html
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "austpacwx" group. To post to this group, send email to austpacwx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austpacwx+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com.au/group/austpacwx?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
That is probably the event that I'm speaking of; but I was only half
watching the documentary at the time. I think they also mentioned that
Yellowstone eruption status was immanent, which is why I found the whole
concept interesting
From: Ken Kato [mailto:kka...@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 31 October 2009 10:39 AM
To: Austpacwx
Subject: RE: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Marcus,
I don't know too much about eruptions when it comes to feedback mechanisms,
except that massive eruptions can have a measurable effect on global temps
e.g. Krakatoa, Mt Pinatubo (decrease of around 0.5C was one figure I think I
remember)... also caused amazingly red sunsets around the world for a year
or two. I could be wrong but I suspect unless a future eruption is big
enough, the world might resume warming (because of the greenhouse gases
already existing in the atmosphere before the eruption... and not enough
being reabsorbed into cooler oceans after the eruption) after the ash
settles out of the atmosphere.
I also don't know that much about any freezing over of the Thames River
during the 1100-1400 AD period - I'm more familiar with the freeze-overs
during the Little Ice Age a few centuries later which allowed Londoners to
ice skate on it.
Ken.
_____
Ken,
Being very much a lay man, from memory a volcanic eruption - from a super
volcano around 1100-1400 AD -ish in china caused massive global cooling for
two years. The River Tems froze and all sorts of things happened.
Say we reach that certain point; could a similar eruption re stabilize to
current temps for a period?
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ken Kato
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 11:26 PM
To: Austpacwx
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Yep there's also that factor Marcus in addition to the thermal expansion of
water and glacial melt. The earth's snow/ice cover is responsible for
reflecting a lot of solar radiation back out into space (the albedo figure
is about 0.3 or 30% of the total radiation if i remember correctly). As more
snow/ice melts, the ability of the planet to reflect this solar radiation
into space reduces, more of it gets absorbed and warms the atmosphere,
causing further ice melt, etc. This is one of the positive feedback
mechanisms with global warming in which you can reach a certain point where
nothing can stop the viscious cycle.
Ken.
_____
Hi Bussy,
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people
correct me if I'm wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see
rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp
sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So,
realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in
the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up
more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the
area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the
ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of
water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and
ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I
mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another
story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much
that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to
continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly
informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow
what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is
a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
----- Original Message -----
From: Clyve Herbert <mailto:mes...@iprimus.com.au>
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and
up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year
not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of
Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast
will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal
Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by
someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the
back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole
process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened
by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding
expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate
debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are
telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
<BR<BR
</html
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"austpacwx" group. To post to this group, send email to austpacwx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
austpacwx+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/austpacwx?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"austpacwx" group.
To post to this group, send email to austpacwx@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
austpacwx+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/austpacwx?hl=en.
The Pinatubo eruption suppressed global temperatures by around 0.3-0.4 C for about 12 months (although its effect on annual means was more muted because the eruption was in June, which meant its impact was split across two years). Another particularly well-known example was the Tambora eruption of 1815, which was associated with an exceptionally cool summer of 1816 in Europe and eastern North America (although there were probably synoptic anomalies involved there too).
Most eruptions with climatic impacts are tropical ones, as the tropopause is lower in the tropics, increasing the chances of volcanic material getting into the stratosphere, which is required for a long-term impact on climate. Material in the troposphere will normally be rained out of the atmosphere within a few days (which is what happened with Mount St. Helens).
These events are all well below the scale that a full-blown Yellowstone eruption would be of.
Blair
________________________________
From: Ken Kato [mailto:kka...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 31 October 2009 10:39 AM
To: Austpacwx
Subject: RE: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Marcus,
I don't know too much about eruptions when it comes to feedback mechanisms, except that massive eruptions can have a measurable effect on global temps e.g. Krakatoa, Mt Pinatubo (decrease of around 0.5C was one figure I think I remember)... also caused amazingly red sunsets around the world for a year or two. I could be wrong but I suspect unless a future eruption is big enough, the world might resume warming (because of the greenhouse gases already existing in the atmosphere before the eruption... and not enough being reabsorbed into cooler oceans after the eruption) after the ash settles out of the atmosphere.
I also don't know that much about any freezing over of the Thames River during the 1100-1400 AD period - I'm more familiar with the freeze-overs during the Little Ice Age a few centuries later which allowed Londoners to ice skate on it.
Ken.
________________________________
Ken,
Being very much a lay man, from memory a volcanic eruption - from a super volcano around 1100-1400 AD -ish in china caused massive global cooling for two years. The River Tems froze and all sorts of things happened.
Say we reach that certain point; could a similar eruption re stabilize to current temps for a period?
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Kato
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 11:26 PM
To: Austpacwx
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Yep there's also that factor Marcus in addition to the thermal expansion of water and glacial melt. The earth's snow/ice cover is responsible for reflecting a lot of solar radiation back out into space (the albedo figure is about 0.3 or 30% of the total radiation if i remember correctly). As more snow/ice melts, the ability of the planet to reflect this solar radiation into space reduces, more of it gets absorbed and warms the atmosphere, causing further ice melt, etc. This is one of the positive feedback mechanisms with global warming in which you can reach a certain point where nothing can stop the viscious cycle.
Ken.
________________________________
Hi Bussy,
I think the main concern is the glaziers on Greenland; and please people correct me if I'm wrong, but once the polar Ice shelf is gone we will see rapid temp rises in that region causing the glaziers to melt in turn a sharp sea rise.
Interesting little line of storms moving across Melbourne Now
From: austpacwx@googlegroups.com [mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bussy
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 9:51 PM
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Call me stupid but where the hell is all this added water gunna come from?
8/9ths of icebergs are under water. Ice takes up more space than water. So, realistically, if all the ice melts then there will be arguably no rise in the water level. And mathematically a drop in the level. An 8th taking up more space (as ice does) and then melting equates to less water than the area it is taking up. So with that equation, sea levels should drop when the ice melts and therefore takes up less space than in its frozen state.
Okay we have snow and ice on our higher mountains etc.
Same sort of deal. Not sure but a metre of snow that melts makes 100mm of water. Stand corrected there. Our planet is not overly covered with snow and ice on the continents if it did all melt. Not including sea ice etc as I mentioned before.
So if everything melts, where the hell are we gunna get massive sea rises?
Feel sorry for the polar bears etc which rely on the ice but that's another story.
Where is all this added water gunna come from to make the sea rise so much that its gunna in-undate us with floods etc.
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com<mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Re: Political weather catastrophes
Hi Clyve and all - You are not on your own Clyve. I think we have to continually keep abreast of the science (and the politics) to be properly informed. As for those who don't think for themselves and blindly follow what they are told without checking it out, well, I'm afraid human nature is a very difficult thing to change voluntarily. Lindsay
To: austpacwx@googlegroups.com<mailto:austpacwx@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: [austpacwx] Political weather catastrophes
Hi all.
I was puzzle last week when the media started pushing coastal inundation and up to 20% of coastal Tasmania will be washed away by 2100 (that's the year not the time). Then the news started reporting all coastal areas of Australia are under threat and anybody living within 80 to 100M of the coast will be washed to oblivion. So this week a two day barrage from the federal Government over carbon tax and the trillions of dollars to be made (by someone) all relating to the massive sea level rises expected and all on the back of a weeks worth of media hype. Sorry everybody but I find the whole process misleading and dangerous. So far this year we have been frightened by catastrophic fires expected this summer and now catastrophic flooding expected in the next 20 to 50 years along our coasts, the whole climate debate has got itself into 'Absolutely ' believing in what the computers are telling us. Shame Shame Shame....best regards Clyve Herbert
<BR<BR
</html
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "austpacwx" group.
To post to this group, send email to austpacwx@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austpacwx+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com.au/group/austpacwx?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "austpacwx" group.
To post to this group, send email to austpacwx@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to austpacwx+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/austpacwx?hl=en.
|
