Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

Michael- Boston & I go way back on this topic and he knows I like to cross dress...

I do have a real interest in the East Coast issue though as I am trying to buy some property there.
Aquifer and land use topics cross my plate daily as I try to sus out the mid term (25 yr) window:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pdfs/Dorchester.pdf

This tool is useful for viewing inundation scenarios in coastal Maryland:

http://dnr.maryland.gov/ccp/coastalatlas/shorelines.asp

This:
http://ian.umces.edu/pdfs/stevenson_4.pdf

and this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CZIC-td426-g76-1988/pdf/CZIC-td426-g76-1988.pdf

Are of interest for aquifer issues

 

I sure Boston can find his approved sources that are hen picked to agree with his perception.. I found these somewhat contradictory..





Images Source

 

Its a curse being a sailor. My internet connection is so weak that Im not able to download PDF files.

A shame because I was born In Anne Arundal County , grew up In St Marys County and know the Chesapeake Bay as a waterman for many years. Would be nice to read and understand how the fertile farmland on the coast will be affected. Salination and Oyster drills killed the oysters of the chesapeake when I was young

 

I spend a good deal of time going over the issues there Michael.

I haven't read it but this looks good for some historical context:

http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/1105web/islands.html

http://www.amazon.com/Disappearing-Islands-Chesapeake-William-Cronin/dp/0801874351

A survey of Google images over time shows remarkable land loss in some areas. In south east Dorchester one can clearly see where tilled land has been converted over to high marsh. Next will be salt marsh than open water with time.
This process is laid out in the first PDF I posted above:
SEA LEVEL RISE: TECHNICAL
GUIDANCE for DORCHESTER COUNTY
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pdfs/Dorchester.pdf
I was reading over the history of Dorchester county in a old book posted on line- I will see if I can find it & post.

The Bolide strike I posted about in post #133 has links which cover some of the deeper aquifer issues on the lower bay.

I am gathering that rebound from the last glacial period (Isostatic rebound), aquifer draw downs, global sea level rise, and rim slumping from this strike are writing the script for the bay.
This from the DNR covers some strategies for land erosion/loss for the Bay:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/waterfrontpropertyownersguide.pdf

Sorry- more PDF's....

 

Sorry, had to catch up on some sleep.

This graph is a compilation of a number of temp studies going back ~2000 yrs, its quite the example. Clearly unprecedented is a word that covers the situation well.



here's another, the clear increase in temps in recent times is obvious.



here's another although its only for the northern hemisphere



and another compilation clearly showing an unprecedented rise in temps over the last few years



not much interpretation or cherry picking possible there is there Bamby. Multiple temp studies, not just one, all showing an "unprecedented" rise in temps even above the expected margin of error. Pretty convincing stuff, and not much possibility of anyone "cherry picking" just one data set.

Something else to note is that the temp increase can be and was predicted by the IPCC when they attempted to estimate the change due to CO2 forcing

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

and also

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...gQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNGIz1ye6E9Ut398fA3fd8wtGgwT4w

so, not only was the change accurately predicted it was accurately predicted based on the additional CO2 humans dumped into the atmosphere.

Sorry kids but its pretty simple, increase CO2 by the vast quantities we have and we increase temp by a comparable amount. In this case an unprecedented amount.

Graphs of 10,000 years are of a particularly poor resolution range because the major changes have all occurred in the last 20~30 years. So the pertinent data only shows up as a very thin line going straight up. Makes it hard to see the rate of change that is so important to the discussion. Few researchers would pick that time frame unless they were trying to minimize the recent events. Since they're so hard to see at that resolution. Its like looking at the 1m year graph showing the Milankovitch cycles, the recent dramatic temp increases just don't show up at all in that particular resolution graph. So if you want to take an honest look at the rapid increase in temps over say a year to year basis its kinda silly to insist on finding it in a graph 3 inches long and representing 1m years of temp variations.

OH and Bamby
the Greenland ice sheet only data set is weather not climate. Local events do not constitute global events. A typical error in these types of discussions. Polar forcing and other mitigating factors enhance weather variability locally most often in the polar regions. Typically at a magnitude of 4x again as predicted by the IPCC.

 

More cherry picking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qwDjwHc6BM

 

OK so I had a little fun with a 10,000 year temp compilation graph. No cherry picking over here folks. For the record I altered this graph. I present the data in its original form on the top graph and in its altered form on the bottom graph. The only alteration was to add a nice fat red line depicting the 2010 temp according to the IPCC land/ocean global mean temp anomaly for 2010 which is ~0.65 over baseline. I also added a big fat red line at that temp across the whole graph so all can see the "unprecedented" rise in temps over the last 10,000 years.

Once again so no one thinks I'm trying to pull a fast one here I altered the second graph to depict the present temp anomaly in just as big and fat a lines as the original did with the historic record but not the present anomaly. Which as I said makes it damn difficult to either see whats going on with present temps or fails to show the dramatic increase. take your pick.

Obviously the 10,000 year resolution lacks in its ability to convey any detail within the data.

the big fat red line represents temp today and the big fat red arrow at the far right represents the rate of increase over the last few years. The top graph is unaltered and in its original form, the lower graph is altered only in that two lines were added to represent the 2010 temp anomaly. Clearly, again unprecedented is a term that could be accurately applied to our present situation.

 

I've found a real environmental saver, all we need is our online environmentalist to actually build one and "prove it up". Anyone up to the challenge?

Water Powered Car

"Many people do not realize that when you run a car or truck on gasoline of diesel fuel, you are actually running it on hydrogen. And all we are doing is using the hydrogen from water. And under the National Bureau of Standards figures shows that when you use water, the energy release is roughly two and a half times more powerful then that of gasoline. So water is a very powerful fuel." Stan Meyers 1992

You don't need the carbon that pollutes the earth and also bankrupts the citizens. Oil Corps and NSA/FBI/CIA/BlackOps have bought out this technology, or murdered the inventor, so you the citizen is blindfolded. You will EVER hear about this on TV. You have to get the information here or YOUTUBE. Man will evolve. God wants us to have FREE energy, someday we will see this, if we survive as a race. The elite wants US all dead, or their slaves.

 

amen brother

 

Yep, that sure looks like its trending toward an ice age!

 

In Washington (Direct Current) is too much graft and corruption.
Here we have graphs and conniption.

 

only using one data set from one small location is classic cherry picking of data if your trying to make a point about global climate. Sorry but the readers deserve better.

as Jerry once said

you ain't going to learn
what you don't want to know

CO2 is increasing at faster than predicted rates

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/co2_emi...ed: YaleEnvironment360 (Yale Environment 360)

The increase in greenhouse gasses can only result in increasing temp.

 

From
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-paleoclimate-potential-rapid-climate.html