Comments on: Mississippi burning — and flooding: Haley Barbour to be remembered as man who gave his state 90°F temps 5 months a year plus countless Katrinas?

By: James

James — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:14:26 +0000

Uh, its already hot between May and September in Mississippi

By: pete best

pete best — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:49:17 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2009/ jul/ 08/ nuclear-power-obama-us

The USA is going to have massive problems cleaning up its fossil fuel energy act regardless of this climate bill. Its a dead duck in many regards but there is still hope. However for some reason the beligerant right of the USA is not happy with any of it. Obviosuly energy is not energy in their eyes, its only viable if it comes from the hand that feeds them. Lobbying has watered down this bill so much that it look almost pointless.

By: Rick Covert

Rick Covert — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:37:25 +0000

Sorry that was the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Watching Inahofe and Barbour there was like watching Al Capone and Frank Nittie crime control and prevention.

By: Rick Covert

Rick Covert — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:35:38 +0000

I saw Barbour today during the congressional hearing complaining, among other things, that the ACES bill is too weak! Here’s the actual translation. The bill is so weak thanks to successful efforts of my corporate benefactors who paid my salary and I actively lobbied for that I cannot support this bill.

When Senator Inhofe started questioning Barbour it was like a regular Kukla Fran and Olie show complete with staged testimony, cues and the ever popular nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

There is one thing he mentioned though that I have to question. During Inhofe’s questioning the subject of unemployment benefits came up. Barbour made the statement that there was 3 Billion or 300 million, I don’t remember the correct number, of unemployment benefits in the W-M bill. Barbour stated that he thought this was disconcerting in a bill the he termed, “…was supposed to be a jobs bill.” So what’s the real truth there?

By: paulm

paulm — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:15:15 +0000

Secular Animist sealevelrise is sexier, but it is also a more visible representation of the state change that is upon us.

By: SecularAnimist

SecularAnimist — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:19:06 +0000

It’s interesting to me that the discussion seems to focus immediately on sea level rise, rather than on drought.

Even in the worst case, catastrophic sea level rise (e.g. sufficient to render coastal cities effectively uninhabitable) will likely take decades.

But catastrophic drought — widespread, intense, prolonged, multi-year drought that effectively wipes out major agricultural regions and leads to food shortages and even famine within just a few years — can start suddenly, at any time. And indeed, it appears that it may have already started.

That’s why drought scares me much more than sea level rise.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:28:45 +0000

What policymakers need to understand is that mitigating emissions with adaptation measures now is much cheaper than adapting to 1-2 inch sea level rises in 2050 or later. Either way, if it’s agreed that climate change is happening and will continue to get worse, then it’s much more politically prudent to adapt now than rather. Unfortunately, the way America’s political system is set up, this kind of problem, with long term consequences and short term costs, means you have a lot of legislative inaction and resistance. for more check out climatesecurity.blogspot.com

By: Alex J

Alex J — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:31:33 +0000

Some people still seem to assume that sea level rise will be a steady, gentle process. That’s a big bet to make considering post-AR4 research on ice sheet dynamics. The total increase by 2100 may be one or two meters (assuming little contribution from Antarctica this century), but that won’t necessarily break down to a nice, even X cm per decade. Therefore, the effects on coastal farmland and cities (including sewer system and aquifer infiltration, and high storm surge) won’t be nice & even either.

By: paulm

paulm — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:34:48 +0000

…
Dr Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: “There is a very close and statistically highly significant correlation between the rate of sea level rise and the temperature increase above the pre-industrial background level.”

“His calculations suggest sea level will rise between 0.5 and 1.4 metres – and the higher estimate is more likely because emissions have been rising faster than the IPCC’s worst case scenario.

He said: “I sense than now a majority of sea level experts would agree with me that the IPCC projections are much too low.”

By: paulm

paulm — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:33:08 +0000

There’s this article also…

Earth faces ‘Waterworld’ as global warming ‘lasts centuries’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ earth/ environment/ globalwarming/ 5715354/ Earth-faces-Waterworld-as-global-warming-lasts-centuries.html

The growing consensus among climate scientists is the “official” estimate of sea level rise by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – 20cm to 60cm by 2100 – is misleading.

It could well be in the region of one to two metres – with a small risk of an even greater rise.

In a report in New Scientist magazine, climate expert Dr Eric Rignot, of California University, said: “When we talk of sea level rising by one or two metres by 2100 remember that it is still going to be rising after 2100.”

For many islands and low lying regions including much of the Netherlands, Florida and Bangladesh even small rises will spell catastrophe.