The Good News Is Jersey Shore Is Set To Be Cancelled, The Bad News Is . . .

. . . so is the entire actual Jersey shore. A Princeton study has found that global warming is causing a rise in sea levels that is far greater and more accelerated than previously thought. The report predicts that the Jersey shore could be underwater in a matter of decades and low-lying areas thrashed by increasing storm surges.

The study of Princeton-based research group Climate Central forecasts an increase of three to four feet in water levels and that the danger of massive killer storms will double by 2030. On their site, you can pick an area to look at the potential damage.

Even if half of this rise in sea levels is realized, it would produce widespread damage within our lifetime. It will be interesting to watch those people denying this environmental trend swim out of that problem.

As for that more painful reality, my greatest concern is that Jersey Shore will then combine with Waterworld in a terrifying mutation that will lead millions to throw themselves into the sea to make it stop.

Source: CBS

217 thoughts on “The Good News Is Jersey Shore Is Set To Be Cancelled, The Bad News Is . . .”

  1. We Won the Lottery – Sort of  by Lynn (Gather’s Official Not-Poet) P.
    First and foremost on the visit list should be St Conan’s Kirk (picture right), a truly breathtaking piece of architecture. Some old, some new, some splendid elegant structures, some just a ruin.

  2. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20pStqHvE

    from the article:

    “The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

    The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

    Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

    Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

    Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

    How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

    Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20t0iEcQH

  3. WHAT? … fifteen thousand record temperatures in the U.S.A. alone:

    The temperature analysis released by the U.S. government each month usually isn’t all that riveting, but the one that came out Monday is a doozy — and not just for weather wonks. Highlights for the contiguous U.S. (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) include:

    *Last month was the warmest March on record (records go back to 1895) at 51.1 degrees; this is 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    *January-March was the warmest first quarter on record; the average temperature of 42 degrees was 6 degrees above average.

    *April 2011-March 2012 was the warmest stretch of those 12 months on record; at 55.4 degrees, that period was 2.6 degrees above average.

    *In March, 15,292 records were broken for warmth; 7,775 were new daytime highs in cities across the country and 7,517 were new nighttime highs.

    “What is so amazing to me is that 25 states had their warmest March on record,” he told msnbc.com. “In addition, another 15 states had a top ten warmest March. Add the two numbers together and that makes a mind-boggling 40 states that had a March that was among their warmest on record.”

    (MSNBC). The writing is on the wall. These were not caused by things done this decade. More like over the past five decades. That means if we wised up today, we would still suffer for five decades until it leveled out.

  4. The Navy is bracing for the effects of Global Warming induced climate change:

    Climate change is here, whether we like it or not. In May 2009, the Chief of U.S. Naval Operations formed the Navy’s Task Force Climate Change (TFCC) to take a hard look at what climate change means for naval operations. Some of the fastest-changing parts of the world include the poles — the Arctic and Antarctic — which are warming at an unprecedented rate. With a near-term focus on the Arctic, the Navy has developed Arctic and climate change roadmaps to guide the way it adapts to climate change.

    (U.S. Navy Takes It Seriously)

  5. anon nurse,

    😉

    The numbers with a dot before them fool some observers, including bdaman, so NASA Scientist Hansen clarifies:

    “The total energy imbalance now [not enough heat radiating into space because of green house gasses] is about .6 watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over the whole world, it’s enormous. It’s about 20 times greater than the rate of energy used by all of humanity. It’s equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year. That is how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance means, if we want to stabilize climate, we must reduce CO2 …”

    (Mother Nature Is An International Woman). Those amounts are for EACH DAY, not year. That much extra energy is being captured instead of being released into space.

  6. The last bdaman is no longer standing:

    After getting called out by an environmental group, General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change.

    The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won’t be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real.

    (General Motors Says Global Warming Climate Change Is Real).

  7. A Republican gets it:

    I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I’m a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make …

    (Message From GOP Meteorologist). Well sir, that sacrifice is very, very small compared to the one we are going to make if we don’t get with the program.

  8. Don’t miss this one:

    The John Muir Institute of the Environment, Institute of Government Affairs, Department of Geology and Mathematical and Physical Sciences Dean’s Office cordially invite you to a presentation by Chris Mooney, bestselling author of four books, including The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, and The Republican War on Science.

    Mooney will discuss the main themes to his new book “The Republican Brain,” the psychological factors contributing to today’s polarized political environment. Many experts today say that liberals and conservatives live in separate and often incompatible realities. One significant area of disagreement is their respective views on major scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. This lecture will draw from Chris Mooney’s examination of the “science of why we don’t believe science.” He will review cutting–edge research suggesting liberals and conservatives are, in aggregate, fundamentally different people — differing in personalities, psychological needs, even brain structures. He will consider the effects these differences have on processing information, especially information about science that has political implications. Mooney’s talk will go beyond standard explanations of ignorance to discover reasons why many Republicans often reject widely accepted findings of mainstream science and explain why understanding cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives is essential to building a civil society with policies grounded in reality and reason.

    Mooney’s visit is hosted by the John Muir Institute of the Environment, Institute of Government Affairs, Department of Geology and Mathematical and Physical Sciences Dean’s Office. Sponsors include the UC Davis School of Law and its California Law & Policy Center; Economy, Justice and Society; Center for Watershed Sciences; UC Davis Extension; Bodega Marine Laboratory; University Outreach and International Programs; University Writing Program; Institute for Transportation Studies and the Energy Efficiency Center. Also made possible with contributions from the Tahoe Environmental Research Center; American Studies; Geography Graduate Group; UC Davis Humanities Institute; and the new Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy.

    (University of California, Davis, 4/13/12).

  9. The ugly delusions of the educated conservative mind:

    Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

    For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

    This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant.

    (Salon).

  10. When will I be able to get help with my job? I work at the Hummer factory. Depending on what type of Hummer you want and who the Hummer is for depends on how much they pay. I get a decent hourly rate, but I feel exposed all the time. They say, if you’ve seen one Hummer you’ve seen them all. This is simply not true.

  11. Scripps Oceanic Institute

    Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally

    Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.

    It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

    Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

    The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.

    At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico’s easternmost state, on the Yucatán Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs. Each day the pH bottomed at about 10am, and peaked shortly after sunset. These extreme sites tell us that some marine life can cope with larger, faster swings than the apocalyptic predictions suggest, though of course, no one is suggesting that the entire global ocean would be happy with similar extreme swings.

    Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.”

    This paper is such a game changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis:

    “This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions””

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/

  12. Almost Ice free

    For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice. Though ice obviously forms there every year, the cover has been unusually extensive this season. In fact, the past several months have included the second highest ice extent in the satellite record for the Bering Sea region, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

    The natural-color image above shows the Bering Sea and the coasts of Alaska and northeastern Siberia on March 19, 2012. The image was acquired by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Black lines mark the coastlines, many of which have ice shelves or frozen bays extending beyond the land borders.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77461

Comments are closed.