Will London be buried under sea in the next ten years due to global warming?

if London is buried under the sea by 2018, HD and alot more will not be around to settle this.
lets stick to fun informative q/wagers! c'mon folks lets cause some hubub about HD by going here www.hubdubforum.com

Please post

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7195752.stm

a recent bbc article on sea level rise and its potential effects on several low-elevation communities including London.

Thank you for pointing out the likelihood of imminent diasters to coastal areas and helping educate the general public about this.

In response to shadowfax, I suspect that hubdub and others will have at least a month's warning if half of Greenland suddenly melts. Several hundred square miles have already been lost. It is probably only a question of time.

I concur that this Q actually is informative and educational. Thanks for correcting me on my newbie reaction to this venue. I also appreciate the link post.

People really need to give up on this global warming crap. If anything, we should be preparing for the next ice age.

Although I view the probability of this event to be significantly less than 1% I'd never wager given the conditions. I've read too
many GW articles based on little more than hysteria in "major mainstream new stories".

I believe that actual global temperature are likely to drop over the next eight years as they have over the last ten. But even
that is a dicey wager when AGW advocates control the ground-based temperature records and make "adjustments" that support their theories.

Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

...
On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.
...
[Much more at the link...]

About half of U.S. mortgages seen underwater by 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090805/bs_nm/us_usa_housing_deutschebank

...

Homeowners with the riskiest mortgages taken out during the housing boom have seen the greatest erosion in equity, in part because they were "affordability products" originated at the housing peak, Deutsche said. They include subprime loans, of which 69 percent will be underwater in 2011, up from 50 percent in March, Deutsche said,

Of option adjustable-rate mortgages -- which cut payments by allowing principal balances to rise -- 89 percent will be underwater in 2011, up from 77 percent, the report said.

Regions suffering the worst negative equity are areas in California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and West Virginia. Las Vegas and parts of Florida and California will see 90 percent or more of their loans underwater by 2011, it added.

"For many, the home has morphed from piggy bank to albatross," the analysts said.

"Warming Arctic should be cooling, study finds"

"WASHINGTON - The Arctic is warmer than it's been in 2,000 years, according to a new study, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight. The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University." MORE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32675876/ns/us_news-environment/

PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.

Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".

World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.
[More at the link...]

@diego_de_vega:

"I've read too many GW articles based on little more than hysteria in 'major mainstream new stories'." Yes, those exist. So stop reading them. Instead, read real scientific articles in real scientific magazines (and by "real scientific magazines", I'm not referring to ExxonMobil's annual report).

"I believe that actual global temperature are likely to drop over the next eight years as they have over the last ten." Well, they haven't dropped, but let's go on your supposition that they have: what makes you believe this?

"...AGW advocates control the ground-based temperature records and make 'adjustments' that support their theories." Yes, you're right: the majority of the world's scientists--that is, those not working for Big Energy--have all collaborated on perpetrating this massive hoax. :-) Were I you, I would definitely disbelieve them. Instead, rely on the increasingly desperate lies of those dipping from that steady stream of cash flowing from ExxonMobil; they certainly have no agenda.

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

...
"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change."
...

[More at the link...]

Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review

In his first public appearance since the beginning of the emails row Phil Jones tells MPs he will be cleared of accusations

The scientist at the centre of a media storm over global warming research admitted today he had sent "awful emails" but said he expected to be cleared of accusations that he tried to pervert the scientific process.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told a parliamentary inquiry that there was nothing in the hundreds of emails released on to the internet last year that supported the claims.

"I was just commenting that those papers weren't very good," Jones said. "There is nothing that [shows] that me or the CRU were trying to pervert the peer review process in any way."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-climate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing

about the memorandum mentioned in comment #12:

John Beddington, the government's chief scientiific adviser, told the committee the institute's view was "premature" and that they should wait until the Russell inquiry publishes its findings in the spring.

Bob Watson, chief scientist at the environment department Defra said the media have portrayed the email affair as a crisis, but there are no adverse conclusions on the science of global warming. He said it was beyond debate that the climate has changed markedly over the last century.

THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH
UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
Stephen McIntyre
Climate Audit
Feb. 10, 2010

http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf


1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been a highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.

The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices - the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents.

...


7. One of the underlying problems in trying to use tree ring width/density chronologies for temperature reconstructions is a decline in 20th century values at many sites - Briffa’s 1992 density (MXD) chronology for the influential Tornetrask site is shown at left below. The MXD chronology had a very high correlation to temperature, but went down in the 20th century relative to what it was “expected” to do and relative to the ring width (RW) chronology (which had a lower correlation to temperature.) So Briffa “adjusted” the MXD chronology, by a linear increase to the latter values (middle), thereby reducing the medieval-modern differential. This adjustment was described in private as the “Briffa bodge” (Melvin and Briffa 2008).

8. Although there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment, peer reviewers of Briffa et al (1992) did not object. “Bodging” then seems to entered into the CRU toolkit to get reconstructions to “look” right, as evidenced by the Climategate documents containing annotations that the method contains “fudge factors” or “very artificial corrections for decline” (e.g. http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro)

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
9. Although the bodge was reported in the original article, the bodge was not reported in the numerous multiproxy studies relying on the Tornetrask reconstruction nor in the IPCC reports nor was it considered in calculation of confidence intervals.

Withholding Adverse Data
10. There are many incidents in the Climategate Letters of withholding data. I’ll review one incident which, in my opinion, has a direct impact on the research record.
11. Briffa et al. (1995) produced an influential chronology from the Polar Urals site (Figure 2- left), which combated the idea of a widespread Medieval Warm Period, supposedly showing a very cold 11th century in Siberia, with 1032 supposedly being the coldest year of the millennium. Further measurements (Figure 2- right) yielded a chronology in which the 11th century was warmer than the 20th century. Neither CRU nor any other climate scientist ever published this update. The data at right has never been publicly archived and was obtained only through quasi-litigation at Science. (One of the Climategate Letters expresses regret that the data was made available.)
...

“Cherry-picking”
13. There has been considerable suspicion that CRU cherry-picked the Yamal chronology over the updated Polar Urals chronology or a still unavailable combined chronology attested in Climategate Letter 1146252894.txt.

14. Instead of showing the updated Polar Urals chronology (figure 3-left), Briffa (2000) replaced it without discussion with a chronology from nearby Yamal, one with an extremely pronounced hockey stick shape. This chronology became a mainstay of subsequent multiproxy reconstructions, while the unpublished Polar Urals chronology was ignored. Measurement data for the three Briffa (2000) chronologies - Yamal, Taymir and Tornetrask - was not archived at the international tree ring measurement archive. Briffa resisted requests to archive the measurement data, which was not archived until September 2009 (and then only after Phil Trans B was asked to require its archiving.)

[More at the link...]

posted 2 weeks ago

OMFG, you guys are going to rehash those stale arguments again? Jeez, some of your own are even suggesting the GOP start listening instead of jerking their knees in defensive response to every possible bit of science (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/01/graham-youth-climate/). As a liberal, I'm happy; the political side of me can gleefully watch the Right dig itself into a deeper and more irrelevant hole. But, unfortunately, this isn't a spectator sport with a win going to whichever side can make the cutest sound bites (see Palin, Beck, Inhofe, etc.). The fact of the matter is--and it is an empirically proven fact--the earth is getting warmer, and our activities are spurring that along, so all the silly posturing will ultimately amount to nothing. Action is what's needed, and needed now.

Please--for the love of America, and for the love of earth--come to your senses. Stop being led by the nose by the ExxonMobils of the world. I can assure you: they do not have your best interests in mind, nor those of your children.

@sqlman:

Hyperbole is not going to change the truth. Denying science, although popular with the Mann Made Global Warming crowd, is only a device to attempt to create mass hysteria. Science does not change to conform to some denier's religious fanaticism about a beloved idea that some 2,500 "scientists" (using that term loosely) endorsed a few years ago.

"Action is needed now" Ever notice about how leftists are always in a hurry? If you were to listen to them, you would notice a pattern to their prattle, something like a broken record. We "need" comprehensive healthcare reform NOW! We "need" TARP funds for Wall Street NOW! We "need" cap-and-tax NOW! Delay is not an option!!! Get your swine-flue vaccine NOW! Don't waste a good crisis!

This chatter is irksome to normal people. Unfortunately some poor people believe stuff like that, and make fools of themselves in one way or another. They might just give money to Greenpeace, or Al Gore or some other scam artist, or it could take more serious turn; such is the story below.

Baby survives parents' global warming suicide pact
A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.

Police were alerted by worried neighbours who discovered the massacre three days after the shooting and the girl was taken to hospital.
[More at the link...]

For years we have been hearing "the world is coming to an end" from the Global Warming crowd. Now that the science is being cleared up, they know they are losing their reputation, and in one final frantic effort to exert their influence, they are saying "it is even worse than we thought!!!"

For the truth, see http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

@sqlman:

Hyperbole is not going to change the truth. Denying science, although popular with the Mann Made Global Warming crowd, is only a device to attempt to create mass hysteria. Science does not change to conform to some denier's religious fanaticism about a beloved idea that some 2,500 "scientists" (using that term loosely) endorsed a few years ago.

"Action is needed now" Ever notice about how leftists are always in a hurry? If you were to listen to them, you would notice a pattern to their prattle, something like a broken record. We "need" comprehensive healthcare reform NOW! We "need" TARP funds for Wall Street NOW! We "need" cap-and-tax NOW! Delay is not an option!!! Get your swine-flue vaccine NOW! Don't waste a good crisis!

This chatter is irksome to normal people. Unfortunately some poor people believe stuff like that, and make fools of themselves in one way or another. They might just give money to Greenpeace, or Al Gore or some other scam artist, or it could take more serious turn; such is the story below.

Baby survives parents' global warming suicide pact
A seven-month-old girl survived for three days alone with a bullet in her chest after being shot by her parents as part of a suicide pact over their fears about global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7344329/Baby-survives-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html
Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.

Police were alerted by worried neighbours who discovered the massacre three days after the shooting and the girl was taken to hospital.
[More at the link...]

For years we have been hearing "the world is coming to an end" from the Global Warming crowd. Now that the science is being cleared up, they know they are losing their reputation, and in one final frantic effort to exert their influence, they are saying "it is even worse than we thought!!!"

For the truth, see http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

@notablenotices

"the truth" ...

oh, I see, dieseldog gave you his crystal ball.

@notablenotices

"the truth" ...

oh, I see, dieseldog gave you his crystal ball.

@kruijs:

Please explain. I normally think of "crystal balls" in association to guessing an outcome that is unknown and still in the future.

How does this relate to the link I posted at http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf ? Nothing that I can see there is unknown or still in the future. Is there some other obscure meaning to the "crystal ball" phrase?

seems some folks don't believe what their preaching. 3% yes should make you guys a killing. oh wait you need more data, differnt software, change a formula, etc. no wait this is only 10 years..you need to add another 90. you can't make short term projections cause you would look silly when they didn't come true. if it makes you guys feel better i dug through the 4 ft of snow today, and stuck a thermometer in the ground. i'll let you know before it reaches boiling temp so you can make plans to save the children. :O

on a unrelated note its good to see sqlman settling the backlog of questions. thought maybe attending all those neocon consertive conventions caused him to have a nervous breakdown. so is it safe to start wagering in the world & general cats again?

@dieseldog:

Yeah, these "hot-heads" need to put their $HDs where they got their mouth!

According to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/free_estack_pages/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html (quoting the highly regarded Mr Al Gore, who used to be the future President of the United States,) we only have 5 years, 331 days, 14 hours, 53 minutes, and 21 seconds left!

a follow-up which notablenotices would not post here

@ comment #12

Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry

Strongly worded submission to the parliamentary inquiry is being used to imply the institute questions the scientific evidence for climate change, statement says

In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/institute-of-physics-emails-inquiry-submission

another follow-up which notablenotices would not post here

@ comment #12

Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission

Evidence from Institute of Physics drawn from energy industry consultant who argues global warming is a religion

Evidence from a respected scientific body to a parliamentary inquiry examining the behaviour of climate-change scientists, was drawn from an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion, the Guardian can reveal.

The submission, from the Institute of Physics (IOP), suggested that scientists at the University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that key reconstructions of past temperature could not be relied upon.

The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services.

According to Gill, Crestport offers "consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide", and says that it has worked with "oil and gas production companies including Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman".

Evan Harris, a member of the science and technology select committee, said: "Members of the Institute of Physics … may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission

We are at 3% probability - those "hot-headed" deniers are not putting their money where their mouth is! LOL

This is just in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/sc_nm/us_climate_methane
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/sc_nm/us_climate_methane

OSLO (Reuters) - Large amounts of a powerful greenhouse gas are bubbling up from a long-frozen seabed north of Siberia, raising fears of far bigger leaks that could stoke global warming, scientists said.

It was unclear, however, if the Arctic emissions of methane gas were new or had been going on unnoticed for centuries -- since before the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century led to wide use of fossil fuels that are blamed for climate change.

The study said about 8 million tonnes of methane a year, equivalent to the annual total previously estimated from all of the world's oceans, were seeping from vast stores long trapped under permafrost below the seabed north of Russia.

"Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap," Natalia Shakhova, a scientist at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, said in a statement. She co-led the study published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

The experts measured levels of methane, a gas that can be released by rotting vegetation, in water and air at 5,000 sites on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf from 2003-08. In some places, methane was bubbling up from the seabed.

Previously, the sea floor had been considered an impermeable barrier sealing methane, Shakhova said. Current methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.
[More at the link...]


... I can hear those leftys now - hey, let's tax the whales something needs to be done NOW about whale-made "global warming"!

I can hear those leftys now - hey, let's tax the whales something needs to be done NOW about whale-made "global warming"!

ROTFLOL

i dont get it...where do the whales come in? the article doesn't mention whales at all

It was just a light-hearted attempt to explain where all the methane was coming from that is being generated under the ocean...

p4d - they was there. they "walked away"..you just missed them. :O)

:)