When somebody mentions “Maldives”, the image above of a tropical paradise often springs to mind. Andy Revkin wrote a story recently about the Maldives on his NYT Dot Earth blog that provoked quite an email exchange that I was privy to today. Here are some highlights. First the article:
Maldives Seeks Carbon Neutrality by 2020
By Andrew C. Revkin March 16, 2009, 8:39 am
No spot in the Maldives is more than six feet above sea level. (Click here for a narrated slide show describing this reporter’s first visit to the Maldives, in 1980.)
The Maldives, a strand of coral atolls south of India, is just about the most tenuous country on Earth. No patch of land in the island chain, where the population has risen from 200,000 to 400,000 in the last 25 years, is more than six feet or so above sea level. Even modest projections for a rise in sea level from global warming would increase flooding from storm surges. A higher rise could render hundreds of islands uninhabitable.
That’s why the country has paid particularly close attention, since the early days of discussion of the issue, to scientists who warn of a growing human influence on climate and sea levels. On Sunday, the new president of the island nation, Mohamed Nasheed, prodded the world to get serious about cutting emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by pledging, in a short piece in England’s Observer newspaper, to make the Maldives the first carbon-neutral country within a decade:
Many politicians’ response to the looming catastrophe, however, beggars belief. Playing a reckless game of chicken with Mother Nature, they prefer to deny, squabble and procrastinate rather than heed the words of those who know best…. Spearheaded by a switch from oil to 100% renewable energy production within a decade, the Maldives will no longer be a net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
The announcement was made in the Maldives, but synchronized with the London premiere of ” The Age of Stupid,” a new film on global warming and oil that is a mix of documentary, dramatization and animation. (I haven’t seen it yet, but the description reminds me of the work of Randy Olson, particularly his mock documentary ” Sizzle.”) Officials in the Maldives made the decision after soliciting a report on how to cut fossil fuel use and otherwise trim the country’s climate footprint from Chris Goodall and Mark Lynas, British environmentalists and authors of books on energy and climate.
The proposal recommended a mix of wind turbines, rooftop photovoltaic panels and a backup power plant that burns coconut husks (coconut is a substantial export), among other steps. The estimated cost: about $1.1 billion over 10 years. But the new energy options could pay off in the long run by greatly reducing the country’s reliance on imported oil, the report concluded.
The early concern about global warming by officials in the Maldives was visible as far back as 1988, as shown in this vignette from my first (and long out of print) book on climate, “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast”:
Perhaps the most straightforward projections of what a greenhouse future will bring in coming decades are those related to rising seas. A foot-and-a-half rise doesn’t sound like much – unless you live in a place that just barely pokes above the ocean. I learned this when I went to Toronto in 1988 to report on the First International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere. Most of the discussions centered on devising strategies to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from automobiles, power plants, and the burning of tropical forests. Among those in attendance was Hussein Manikfan, who holds the title Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative to the United Nations from the republic of Maldives.
At first it seemed odd to find a representative from the Maldives at the meeting. The country, a sprinkling of 1,190 coral islets in the Indian Ocean southwest of Sri Lanka, has no tropical forests, hardly any automobiles, and little industry beyond the canning of bonito. I spoke for a while with Manikfan. Why was he in Toronto? “To find out how much longer my country will exist,” was his simple reply.
Manikfan is worried because few of the islands have any point that is more than six feet above sea level. Even now, many of the atolls are awash during strong storms. The fear is that Manikfan’s nation – with a tradition of independence dating back thousands of years and its own language and alphabet – might have to be abandoned altogether, as if it were a slowly sinking ship.
Now for the geographically challenged, the map:
Dr. Don Easterbrook responded today to Andy Revkin with this email, cc:d to me
Andy,
I just read your article on sea level alarm in the Maldives. You may not be aware of a study there by Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedish sea level expert (former president of the INQUA Commission of Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution). Attached is photographic evidence by Morner that sea level in the Maldives is not rising relative to the coasts but has indeed fallen! Global sea level has been rising at a rate of about a foot per century but the Maldives are either rising or subject to a local sea level anomaly related to ocean currents and evaporation rates. Thus, the ‘poster child’ of Gore’s sea level alarm is invalid.
Don
The photographs he attached are interesting to say the least, click for larger images:
And soon others were jumping in. Tom Harris quoted a study from Nils-Axel Mörner and provided a plot from Nils-Axel Mörner’s study of sea level using C14 isotope dating.
Harris wrote:
While Andrew does not personally say that sea level rise will swamp the Maldives soon, he implies he agrees with the scenario by including nothing at all to counter the validity of the Maldivian announcement. I suggest Andrew read about Morner’s work and get an expansion of the below misleading piece published right away. You can download (for the next 7 days) one of Dr. Morner’s most recent papers on the topic at http://tinyurl.com/dhz6gk . Note the below graph from that report, especially.
Note also the Feb 2009 report of the SWEDISH SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES NETWORK at Lund U (a large, respected and very old school in Sweden) at http://www.sasnet.lu.se/maldives09.html, in which they conclude, “In June 2004, Prof. Mörner published his research results in an article titled ”The Maldives Project: a future free from sea-level flooding” in the Contemporary South Asia magazine. However, the Maldivian government did not react positively to these findings since they went against the official policy, even though the facts presented seem to be beyond dispute and are confirmed in private by individual Maldivian researchers.” I have submitted a letter to the editor to the NYT on this and I’ll let people know if it is published.
Andy Revkin responded with:
Has anyone on this list assessed this Indian Ocean / Pacific sea level study — http://bit.ly/IndianOceanSeaLevel — which seems to challenge Morner’s analysis?
To which Nils-Axel Mörner replied:
The paper by Church et al. represent desk-work at the computers. Tide gauges have to be treated with care. There are pitfalls both withrespect to stability (compaction, etc) and cyclic patterns (disqualifying regressionline approaches).Our Mildives story is based on multiple criteria: off-shore, on-shore, lagoonal, back-shore, swamp environment.Ditailed morphology (in different environmental settings) is combined with stratigraphy and biological index + numerous C14-dates.Also, our team of researchers is very strong.
Have you heard of the Australian study on 12 Pacific islands, some of them mentioned by Church? They used much more reliable equipment than the others. They claimed an upward trend but this was done by the dishonest use of a linear regression which made use of the temporary depression on all the records caused by the 1988 hurricane. If you look at the actual records in their report (attached) and ignore this temporary event you will find that there was no change for the last sixteen years. The website of the Australian Bureau of meteorology has individual and summarizing reports on this project at
The Geology speaks for itself!As Morner points out, Church,, White, and Hunter applied a number of regional ‘corrections’ to the basic tide gauge record and calculated averages of a large region to arrive at their conclusion that sea level was rising in the Maldives. This is akin to putting one foot in a bed of hot coals and the other in a bucket of ice, averaging the temperature, and concluding that you should be quite comfortable! Putting aside the arguments around tide gauge levels, the geologic evidence appears to be indisputable and indicates conclusively that the sea levels at the sites shown in Morners paper cannot be submerging. You’re a smart guy–look at the geologic evidence in the two attached photos and judge for yourself.Figure 1 shows a post-1970 wave-cut notch eroded into the pre-1970 shore platform. You cannot do that with a submerging coastline. (The platform should be under water if the island is submerging, not being eroded at a lower level). This is a classic example of an emergent shoreline, the kind you can see in any geologic textbook.Figure 2 shows the present high tide line, the 1970 shoreline, and a pre-1970 shoreline. If the island has been submerging since 1970, as contended by Church,, White, and Hunter, the present high tide line should be above the 1970 shoreline, not below it!Any regional analysis of average sea level changes cannot trump the geologic evidence at the two sites shown. The geologic evidence is site specific, just like each foot in the coals and ice bucket. The average is meaningless.
So it boils down to this: Who would you rather believe? People doing studies on-site and gathering photographic evidence that shows clear geologic actions of lowered sea levels on the islands, or somebody sitting in an office analyzing and doing regressions on tide gauge data when they’ve never even done and checking on the quality control of the gauges themselves? Here’s one from Tasmania from this CSIRO report:
I’m sure that old algae covered dock is stable enough to use for “calibration”. Surely no possibility of shifting, or sinking there.
Here’s a somewhat better tide gauge placement of a gauge in the Adriatic sea.
The description reads:
The tide gauge Luka Koper is located in northern part of Adriatic in Koper bay at the industrial pier grounded to the bottom with piles.
Here’s one in Alaska:
Here’s another, at Cape Ferguson in Australia, from BOM:
IMHO The idea that a dock (or piling) is a long term stable measurement platform is simply ludicrous. Piles sink, structures decay, boats whack them, pounding wave action loosens their grip. One feature missing from all these old style tide gauges is any way to reference the long term level of the gauge itself. In the era of GPS we can start doing this, but in the years past, how much is from simple sinking of the pilings over time? When you are looking for millimeters per year, such things become significant.
Gee, and I thought weather station measurement issues were bad. Scientists really do need to get out more. Perhaps the next IPCC conference can be in the Maldives instead of Bali. I volunteer to run beach tours to show water level notches. – Anthony
JamesG says
“I think it’s a trap too to believe that those moonbat, anti-capitalist, anti-population nutjobs represent the majority of AGWers, when they are probably just a loud, lunatic fringe.”
Comment:
Some of your other comments may be valid but the moonbat folks you reference above are in the drivers seat in congress and in the white house as evidenced by the legislation being pushed through. Those who fit the moonbat description are the Speaker of the House, Congressman Waxman, The enegy czar, the Department of energy secretary, the EPA head, and a few others in the administration that even includes one who is a (past?) member of an international socialist organization. These folks have already declared CO2 to be a pollutant. Only a moonbat could support that position.
Knowing that the alternative energy sources will cost about double that of current fossil fuels, the plan seems to be to tax and burden conventional fuel suppliers thus chocking the supply of “cheap” conventional energy. In addition to taxing the production, they plan to add a carbon tax or cap and trade on top of the proposed onerous tax on oil, natural gas and coal production.
Besides the enormous increased cost, the risk is that the strategy depends largly on technology that currently is not demonstrated commercially and may never provide a meaningful energy supply. If the gamble does not materialize the impact on our economy would be devastating. Furthermore the alternatives often requires more energy in it’s manufacture than it ultimately provides (think ethanol with Congress mandating more and more every time they meet). Huge tax dollars are being dunped in a “market” to develop alternatives that is already strained to wisely spend the money. I see it every day.
Finally, I don’t understand your comment that heavy oil won’t be cheap or clean. Heavy oil has been produced and widely used for probably 40 years or more; and while it costs more that light sweet crude it is cost effective and clean. Technology has been practiced in refineries for years to process heavy oils and remove the sulphur. Many refineries have been designed to process heavy crudes using Fluid Cokers or delayed cokers.
We you confused with tar sands? For your information, I worked on a huge Canadian tar sands plant about 30 years ago, and it was built when crude was $12/bbl; and that plant used the same technology as refineries use today to break down heavy crude to lighter products (used in gasoline and diesel oils).
It always amazes me to hear our media and politicians talk about things like energy where they have absolutely no understanding of the facts and clearly don’t want to know the facts. Their agenda is exposed.
Hey Danny Bloom, how’s that court case working out for yea? lol
Tell me,….. is there such thing as “Crimes against sanity”?
TonyB (04:08:02) :
No TonyB, I never got any aerial photos.
Thanks for the heads up re Shaig
This article is correct in pointing out the tide gauges can produce suspect data, just like weather stations; there is much to be done in that area.
Richard III
I had read that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would raise the ocean level by about six feet, and your calculations seem to bear that out. According to Wikipedia, the volume of ice in the WAIS is about 2.5 million cubic kilometers. You indicate that a melt of 398.398 cubic kilometers in a rear
s time would raise the sea level one foot. 2.500,000/398,398 =~ 6.25. The problem is that melt isn’t the issue. The Ross Ice Shelf acts as a door stop tothe WAIS, and when it collapses, which it tends to do during interglacial periods, theWAIS begins to slip into the ocean I have no information as to the pace at which pieces of the ice sheet and related glaciers begin to break off and float off, but I imagine that within a hundred year perios this would result in a considerably greater inrease the the one foot that you estimate.
JamesG (16:52:02) :
“JimB
Ah but if clean coal ever appears at some distant point, it’s likely not going to be economically efficient so you can scratch that one off your list. ”
No…it’s not that simple. Our definitions of “clean” may be different.
“And coal is certainly dirty by any description.”
Again, not by mine. But I’m curious, what’s your definition?
“I’m not sure you’d be keen on a new breed of terrorists running around with polonium dirty bombs either. ”
I’m not keen on the ones that are running around now. The proliferation of nuclear energy isn’t going to change that. This particular horse has already left the barn. It’s a lot like disproving a consensus…only takes one BOOM.
“Even now, some people manage to keep their houses going on solar power alone. ”
Yes, they do. No question. The state of Maine has a few thousand homes that are “off the grid”. The problem is that it’s not a matter of choosing an energy source, it’s a lifestyle change. And a major one. It’s not as simple as a few solar panels, a few solar collectors, a good mill, and I’m all set. First, as an individual, I need to store it. And I need to store enough of it, that when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, I can keep my heat running in mid December when I may not see the sun for a week. No problem, I’ll just increase the size of my battery bank in the basement. Now what about the grocery store?…how big does their battery bank need to be?
So in the end, what’s possible for some dedicated home owners, is not possible for Mrs. Steffan down the street who’s 84 and doesn’t get around to well anymore. And the solution doesn’t scale. If the Israeli’s really do have cheap panels?…why aren’t they selling them?…and if they do?…that’s fantastic. As a supplement. For some people/applications. And how big is the battery bank for the Mall? Or do we tear that down? Reduce hours for when it has energy available?
“So if all these these things have a pretty good chance of being cheap, safe and clean too then it’s not so difficult to reach common ground is it?”
And I’m sorry, but this is a pretty major assumption, and I believe it’s false based on my understanding of things. When and how do they have “a pretty good chance of being cheap”? There’s nothing cheap about windfarms vis a vis the energy they produce, if you remove the subsidies.
“Back to the point, I frankly suspect the Maldives are just rising faster than the sea is.”
I don’t know whether the islands are rising faster than the ocean. I don’t believe we thoroughly understand the dynamics yet. What I DO believe is that the Maldives aren’t in any danger at this point, at least not due to global warming. That they exist on land that is a foot about sea level and are willing to risk a tsunami/hurricane/cyclone? Not my problem, and it’s not the rest of the world’s either.
JimB
James G wrote:
“Ah but if clean coal ever appears at some distant point, it’s likely not going to be economically efficient so you can scratch that one off your list. And coal is certainly dirty by any description.”
I may be wrong, but isn’t it coal uneconomic only when Co2 needs to be removed? Can’t coal smoke be fairly well scrubbed otherwise?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Antarctica_Map.png
Marie Byrd Land is the portion of Antarctica lying east of the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea and south of the Pacific Ocean, extending eastward approximately to a line between the head of the Ross Ice Shelf and Eights Coast.
.
.
.
Because of its remoteness, even by Antarctic standards, most of Marie Byrd Land (the portion east of 150°W) has not been claimed by any sovereign nation. It isn’t a recognised nation, making it by far the largest single unclaimed territory on Earth, with an area of 1 610 000 km² (including Eights Coast, immediately east of Marie Byrd Land).
.
.
.
While the Amundsen Sea, off eastern Marie Byrd Land represented James Cook’s farthest south position on his 1774 Resolution voyage, the detailed exploration of Marie Byrd Land did not begin until the United States Navy’s Operation High Jump of 1946-47. Comprehensive aerial photography from ski equipped C-47 aircraft provided the first maps of much of Marie Byrd Land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Byrd_Land
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is the segment of the continental ice sheet that covers West (or Lesser) Antarctica, the portion of Antarctica west of the Transantarctic Mountains. The WAIS is classified as a marine-based ice sheet, meaning that its bed lies well below sea level and its edges flow into floating ice shelves. The WAIS is bounded by the Ross Ice Shelf, the Ronne Ice Shelf, and outlet glaciers that drain into the Amundsen Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
Questions
a) Is east east or is it west?
b) Is it because of it’s ‘remoteness’ that all this WAIS speculation is proposed, ie nobody goes there?
c) If the WAIS drains into the Amundsen Sea and this sea is “off eastern Marie Byrd Land”, see Q-a?
d) Marie Byrd Land lies between the Transantarctic Mountains and the Amundsen Sea, see Q-a?
It helps if the map link at the top of this post is opened in another window/tab.
Is WikiP confused or am I?
“lobal sea level has been rising at a rate of about a foot per century but the Maldives are either rising or subject to a local sea level anomaly related to ocean currents and evaporation rates. ” from the Don Easterbook memo/note.
I can only assume that people cheering on the Maldives think that somehow every coastline threatened by sea level rises will in fact rise itself, or be saved by a local seal level anomaly? I’m sure the Bangladeshis are jumping for joy at this news:)
lol at myself… seal level rise:)
and lobal… I gotta hit the sack. although that was a cut/paste error rather than a typo.
Solar cells and batteries (two bulwarks of “alternative energy”) have serious, probably irresolvable toxicity issues.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…
West things can be near east things. The west Atlantic is by the east coast of North America.
Robert Austin (15:18:44) :
WRT dowsing, it would be my guess from the link that you gave that the Foundation would not in the end classify the examples I gave as actual “dowsing.” It is easy to avoid giving away money when you make it impossible to satisfy conditions or define your terms inexactly. At any rate, I know nothing of “curry and hartman lines” and this might be more like what JREF would classify as “dowsing.” The things I described obviously work on a regular basis and have nothing to do with people finding lost civilizations, just water and pipes 🙂
Aron (04:58:09) : You know, I really take issue when someone’s work is discredited because of their beliefs or lifestyle.
I must agree!
FWIW, my Dad did dowsing for local farmers where I grew up. Not as a business (he sold real estate mostly) but because he had learned it “back on the farm” from some ancestor and had “witched a well” for a local friend… who brought in lots of water. Word spread. So he ended up doing it for friends & neighbors as a favor. (Everyone in a dinky farm town is either a friend or a neighbor…)
He even taught me to do it. Yes, I’ve done ‘water witching’ or dowsing. Per the ‘cross check’ of my Dad dowsing the same site (and the final results) I was pronounced to have whatever gift it is that lets one dowse. It is a remarkably strange experience to have the wood (we were traditional in the use of a Y shaped branch, preferably from a willow or similar water thirsty species) twist in you hands and head to the ground. It move strongly and is not a subtile effect. There is most definitely something that happens.
Now, the kicker: I don’t believe in dowsing! I’m absolutely convinced that there must be some subtile interaction of hands, wood, torque, whatever; that makes the “wand” move and point. But try as I might, I can’t figure out what it is. I can hold a stick for a long time, nothing. Move around some and things wiggle. Then there will come a place where it just starts to twist toward the ground. I’ve had the bark twisted off the wood from my grip on it, trying to stop the twist. I’ve tried deliberately manipulating the stick with slightly better results – I can get minor motions. But that rapid rotate down with vigor just comes when it wants to and I can’t force it to happen.
How is this germane? I would happily teach a class in Dowsing to anyone who was interested. I would demonstrate it, give the history, even pronounce who had “the gift” and who did not based on performance. But I would also point out the complete lack of any rational bases and the “voodoo” probability. The point: There is nothing wrong with teaching a class about anything. There may be something wrong if you characterize the data as something they are not. Don’t let you pronouncements exceed the observed facts…
So if we don’t know exactly what was in his class, the existence of it says nothing about the teacher.
After reading numerous posts by E.M.Smith on this site over many months, would anyone say that they must be discredited now, simply because of the experiences he describes in his 10:03:15 post above?
Yet the grossly unethical personal attacks against Dr. Mörner, simply because he has an interest in something that he thinks may have a reasonable explanation, are nothing but vicious ad hominems by the alarmist contingent.
Alarmists routinely employ such personal attacks along with other unsavory tactics in an effort to advance their reality-deficient CO2/AGW cause and effect belief system.
Personally attacking one of the world’s foremost sea level experts because he has a hobby that they think he should not be allowed to have is typical of many AGW believers’ tactics.
Their tactic is, of course, to attack the man, and to hide out from debating his science.
Tim McHenry (08:24:56) :
Sounds like you have made up your mind without reading the JREF site and the challenge rules. Are you saying that since the $1,000,000 challenge has not been won, the rules must be bogus/unfair? Basically, the person claiming the paranormal phenomenon is allowed to state what they are attempting to show and the JREF through a third party sets up double blind testing. Dowsing for water has been tried and failed under these conditions along with dowsing for other substances and utilities. Have you ever heard of the ideomotor effect?
The JREF site is an interesting read and will show you how the mind can fool oneself and how easily the charlatans can ply their art. James Randi was a former magician who has devoted his life to challenging and debunking paranormal phenomena, especially where it involves separating the gullible from their money. His stories about how easily scientists can be bamboozled should be of special interest to this forum.
Paranormal phenomena are like AGW in that the onus should be on the proponents to prove their claims. A common tactic of proponents is to attempt to shift the burden of disproof onto the skeptic.
Robert Austin, you are so right:
It’s more than a common tactic; when they shift the burden like that, it is nothing less than a repudiation of the Scientific Method.
Following the Scientific Method has guided civilization in the direction of truth, which has in turn made the modern world into the healthiest, richest and most egalitarian society in history.
Climate alarmists want to change that.
Eric Anderson (10:04:38) :
This is simple. Send Al Gore lots of money and he will declare you carbon neutral. I’m sure there will be lots of certificates (all printed on recycled paper) attesting to all the carbon offsetting activities financed by your contributions.
Just another observation:
The Arabs are producing the ultimate source of evil CO2, which is supposedly threatening their Islamic brothers in the Maldives. Would it not be completely fair and in harmony with all sorts of proper ethical standards for the Arabs to pay for the climate change problems experienced by the inhabitants of the Maldives? Doesn’t Allah love the compassionate, especially those hurt by one’s own activities?
Maybe on this point, the greens and oil producing Moslems can come to terms on this?
We’re only talking about a billion dollars. At today’s oil prices, that’s only 20,000,000 barrels of oil. The Saudis are producing about 12,000,000 barrels a day. Two days of oil production and the problem is solved.
Of course it is not a problem, because the sea levels are not rising in the Maldives. How awkward to have others notice the water is not rising. The tree story is a side show. Just look at the geology.
Roger Knights (02:30:45) :
“I may be wrong, but isn’t it coal uneconomic only when Co2 needs to be removed? Can’t coal smoke be fairly well scrubbed otherwise?”
Roger, my wife and I unknowingly moved to an area in SW Missouri within a half-mile of a 160MW coal-fired power plant. We live directly in the path of the prevailing winds from that plant. We were stunned to find out the plant was there, because it doesn’t smoke, smell, or leave any black carbon residue anywhere we can find, even on pristine snow with the plant operating a maximum. We had thought it was a factory of some kind which had closed. Next year, an 300MW addition to the plant comes on line, with an EVEN BETTER emissions scrubber! I had no power outages even during the “Ice Storm of the Century” a couple of years ago. New coal power plant in My Back Yard? Yes, please!
Henry
Sea-level guages..thermometres…rain guages..you name it; until very recently they have all been rather inaccurate….for several reasons.
Is the sea rising or the land falling? Is the guage sinking into clay or mud? Is the guage being somehow raised/lowered by a buckling effect on the platform to which it’s attached/? Who knows?
My personal, slightly O/T, anecdote….
A friend ran a small general store/post office/bank agency in a remote coastal area of Australia…which was/is the Bureau of Meterology’s data source for that area. The BoM station has now been automated. However…
From about 1980 to 1990 my friend was responsible for writing data down and relaying it by phone to the Met. Rainfall in the guage (a beaker) was ESTIMATED by sight!! Sometimes he took a guess..sometimes just made it up.
Sometimes he lost his weekly notes and remembered them as best he could. I suspect a lot of weather data was collected in such a haphazard manner. I wouldn’t be surprised if people even tampered/tamper with the equipment, in the spirit of vandals everywhere.
There’s one station I know in the mountains measuring various things..which could easily be manipulated by bored hikers!! A good kick and maybe there’s been a 7.8 scale earthquake up there ? A cup of water down the guage and, boy, has this year’s precipitation increased!!
Cheers.
” Next year, an 300MW addition to the plant comes on line, with an EVEN BETTER emissions scrubber! I had no power outages even during the “Ice Storm of the Century” a couple of years ago. New coal power plant in My Back Yard? Yes, please!
Henry”
IF the new administration doesn’t shut it down…
Robert Austin (11:09:29)
I DID go to the JREF site and read. My point is that the utility workers are not claiming anything “paranormal.” They have no idea and don’t care how the rods bend. In the cases I pointed out it had nothing to do with beliefs or lack thereof, it’s just something they do to find the water and/or pipes. Now if the Foundation wants to call that a “paranormal” claim, then I’m sure those workers would like $1mil, but I don’t think the foundation would classify what I described (at 11:16:32) as a paranormal event. The impression I get from their website is that you would have to have the workers claim some power or reason behind the rods turning. Sorry, no “gift” here, just an interesting and practical phenomena to find the water.
I guess the reason I stuck with this little OT matter is that I was there and saw it work myself and they evidently use the method regularly.
The latest “Greenhouse Economy” issue of US News & World Report has a section on Bangladesh. The claim is that rising level of seawater going up the rivers is causing salt deposits on the land along the Bay of Bengal coast, preventing normal growth in the rice paddies. So Germanwatch (an environmental NGO) has put Bangladesh at the top of the 2009 Global Climate Risk Index of 170 countries. (Sorry, Maldives!) So, “Bangladesh officials officials are appealing for more help from fossil-fuel-burning industrialized countries, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, to help Bangladesh adapt and avoid a calamity. The compensation issue is to be raised at the Copenhagen Conference in December.” I’m wondering how much the frequent storm surges of seawater over the coastal areas have to do with the salt deposits, vs. the supposed sea level rise.
Mike Bryant (12:47:17) :
“IF the new administration doesn’t shut it down…”
This is Missouri, Mike. Even if The One sent us an order, we probably wouldn’t get around to it for 15-20 years. If there were big words in the order, could take a lot longer.
Henry
Retired BChE (12:59:34):
So, “Bangladesh officials are appealing for more help from fossil-fuel-burning industrialized countries, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, to help Bangladesh adapt and avoid a calamity.
Is it a Facebook-like game? 🙂