Author Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!  (Read 32155 times)

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18307
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1830 on: February 16, 2013, 10:50:18 PM »
back to my current thesis...

I have been feeling and thinking this out along the way since I started this thread.

As I see it now, the big question is how long before the entire Earth faces catastrophic effects, sufficient to affect everyone in most places? I have seen scientific predictions which talk in terms of 'the end of this century'. Against this, I also see numerous scientific (they are the only one I value) predictions relating to the period 2020-2050. We are now in 2013.

But then we appear, against statical reports, to be facing increasing extreme weather conditions. Here I have to rely on my own judgement, as scientists need to stick to data and degrees of accuracy. There have been numerous reports of large indicative events - slabs of ice breaking off, Greenland reductions, Arctic ice cap, permafrost reductions, glacial reductions etc - the list is remorseless.

On this background I feel we have far less time than science is willing to admit publicly.

So the next big question is how will the area around me, and those on Soma, be affected in the interim before it becomes a global condition? This is important, as I get a strong sense that the science is still out on how the changes in the pipeline are going to play out in practice. It is extremely naive to believe everything will remain the same until the shit hits the fan. We are dealing with a highly complex and essentially unpredictable situation.

Aust East was supposed to become dryer - the pattern over the last hundred years - except for my little area, the New England tablelands. We have bucked the trend, plus we have an unnecessarily large dam for town water. But against this, our East Coast weather has been unseasonally wet for the last three seasons!

Among our friends of similar age, there is much talk about where to move to for the the last furlong of life. Many are now thinking Armidale is not such a bad place, considering the unpredictability of the future.

Just before I get to some considerations, we should add in the ancillary factors:

Global Financial problems are still volatile, which will affect humanities capacity to respond to emergencies. In countries where there is insufficient funds to help, people just die. I am expecting those who manage this issue will actually reach a point of effective agreement, to hold off the inevitable collapse inherent in the system we have arrived at, long enough for the environment to hit us first. The result will be a global financial structure unprepared to weather the social consequences of climate change.

War. It now looks unavoidable that a war with China will impact within the next five to ten years, if not sooner. The recent political changes at the top layer in China went the way of increased arrogance and belligerence of the ruling body. Only a different outcome from the changes at the top, could have thwarted the huge hubris accumulated in the Chinese military. The big question is whether the US can restrain its current decline, sufficient to stand against China?

All this indicates to me that we have, possibly, about five years of free space to accumulate resources and experience things which are likely to be closed to us after that - like travel. I see that as the best outcome, although individual factors could affect any one of us.

After that, I seriously question the sanity of living in a big city. And anywhere on a low coastal fringe. Look to the vulnerability of flood and fire, by factoring in extremes not experienced to date. Look to earthquake and volcano fault lines. There is time to sell your house if you see a vulnerability here.

The only safe alternative is to retain sufficient mental and physical flexibility to know how, and be able, to act appropriately once a wave of destruction begins to build or envelops your area.

Alas, many of our members are impoverished financially or in terms of time-left-on-the-planet. This means we will be handicapped in our chances of survival-in-comfort.

In short. Time is running out for stable environmental conditions. I still hold to the most optimistic view in my limited scenario, that we have twenty years. I accept this may be both optimistic and pessimistic, but it's not a bad average.

I have not discussed how the global political bodies will react once the situation becomes obvious and undeniably serious. That is another question.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 03:39:53 AM by Michael »

Offline Taimyr

  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 2051
    • My photos
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1831 on: February 17, 2013, 07:45:57 AM »
I just hope I have enough time to get my country house :) Of course I could go back right away and sell my apartment for that, which is an option, but I will try to save this one coming year and then see how it is.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1832 on: February 22, 2013, 08:00:02 PM »
All this indicates to me that we have, possibly, about five years of free space to accumulate resources and experience things which are likely to be closed to us after that - like travel. I see that as the best outcome, although individual factors could affect any one of us.

I would add a few factors to the list of problems:
1) A number of African states are becoming "basket cases" and theatres for protracted intra-state conflicts;
2) Failed states invite radicals/lunatics with wildly global ambitions, and nobody in the developed world really wants to get involved in low intensity conflicts for years and years
3) A wave of social reform and upheaval called "Arab spring" seems to have produced several societies in flux with altogether 150 million people. However, the problems behind the upheaval - extremely high percentage of unemployed youth, economic inefficiency, deteriorating living environment cannot be solved by regime change in short-term.

In brief, the mess we see, will keep piling up. I would not add any timeline to the foresight. Just imagine how the world would be if Israel struck Iran's nuclear installations this year.

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18307
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1833 on: February 22, 2013, 08:52:50 PM »
As I said earlier, I classify these problems in the 'can be fixed by intelligent human intervention'. Thus I place them in a different category to the Global Warming issue, as that can't be fixed by intelligent human intervention - the time has passed for that. No matter how humanity rallies to the cause, it's too late to avoid the changes coming.

But one could easily argue that such problems as you mention Juhani, are not so easily fixed by humans, intelligent or not. Worse, one could argue there is a growing desire to avoid doing anything about such problems in any significant way.

To this I want to add one more thing which has been bothering me, and has recently arisen in my workplace. We have a 'project' manager for the overall scene. He is in his early forties I'd say. He is exhibiting a strong preference for less information, less discussion with all stakeholders of any issue, and less reflection on matters in general.

We, in the database business, are accustomed to constantly spending most of our time wondering and discussing about 'what could go wrong' - that is the measure of reliability of an IT system. To do this we have to interact closely with the end-users. It is a mind-set that fosters enquiry and re-enquiry, which is exactly what he has no time for.

That is a local issue for me, but in some discussions with friends recently, I realised it is a generational thing. I have given up getting the Guardian Weekly, and Julie is considering giving up her beloved weekend Sydney Morning Herald. What we are seeing in these newspapers is a reduction in reflective and insightful articles - they are much more about this and that, who said what and what happened - the how, but not the why or the implications.

I am now beginning to think this is a new generational mind-set, borne of insufficient book reading or time away from immediate entertainment. An intolerance for reflective and inquisitive thinking or willingness to sit with complexity.

If this be true, then I suspect the new wave of 'managers' of world affairs will, in the broad, be even less capable of responding effectively. I mean there will always be insightful and effective individuals, but a globe is run by many thousands of people in decision making roles, and it is the general wave of capacity lack that bothers me.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1834 on: February 22, 2013, 09:29:00 PM »
I am now beginning to think this is a new generational mind-set, borne of insufficient book reading or time away from immediate entertainment. An intolerance for reflective and inquisitive thinking or willingness to sit with complexity.

Precisely, why would one disconnect his/her mind from the constant chatter and activity to dive into silence to reflect/ponder/see? Why would one try to understand and see things as they are, instead of drifting along and doing no effort?

Recently I had a chat with a boss of one US research institutions who bragged that he could write a meaningful and worthwhile piece on any subject in 10 minutes. He was completely unable to see why would it take a couple of days, a week, etc.

People like him explain perfectly well the unimaginably disastrous strategic choices and decisions we have seen since 2001. Some of them exhibit certain regret over mistakes they have made and lives that have been lost, but they will do nothing to act differently in the future.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1835 on: February 22, 2013, 11:09:57 PM »
September 19, 2012 | by Shelley Jiang

The Horrific Cost of China’s Breakneck Development: Cancer Villages


The map of cancer village concentration that got Weibo users talking. Via Weibo

Follow the spread of China’s development and you’ll find a shadow in its wake: Cancer villages. These are the places where the price for China’s dizzying pace of development is highest, where cancer rates have skyrocketed in the last two decades and almost no family is without a victim.
 
Officially and unofficially, the Chinese media have reported 459 “cancer villages” (癌症村) throughout China. They have been reported in every province and autonomous region, with the exception of Qinghai and Tibet. Once a rare disease, cancer is now the biggest killer in both urban and rural China; mortality rates have grown 80 percent in the last 30 years.

The cancers in these villages are unusual for developed countries: Esophageal, intestinal, of the liver, rectal–all cancers of the digestive tract. That’s because most villages still have no running water and rely on rivers and groundwater for everything from drinking and cooking to farming. Unfortunately, most factories are built by river banks, and industrial wastewater has polluted much of the country’s water systems, with 40 percent of rivers and 55 percent of groundwater unfit for drinking according to a 2012 government report. As the map at right shows, many cancer villages are clustered by the Yellow, Yangtze, and Hai rivers.
 
Netizens corroborate this chilling story. “I am from Taizhou [in Zhejiang province, on the Yangtze River], and recently there really has been a lot of cancer,” writes @海角天涯1999 on Sina Weibo, China’s Twitter. “My father’s generation says that the river water was once drinkable; then it could only be used for laundry and swimming; and later it was fit only for cleaning toilets. Now it can only be used for dumping trash, and the smell along the banks is very bad … Recently the groundwater has also been severely polluted, and it too is no longer drinkable, but farmers still use it to water their crops. Eat the crops, and die from poison. Don’t eat it, and starve.”
 
Paradoxically, over 86 percent of cancer villages are found in China’s wealthiest east coast provinces. But they are located in the poorest counties there. Slowly, people are realizing that China’s miracle economic growth may be coming at too high a cost. @小兔和她的朋友们 writes, “Chinese people really do sell their lives for money, but the money earned does not necessarily buy back life.” Reflecting on the value of a life, @南京的唐唐 comments that “Chinese people all live for GDP,” and @冀叟123 writes that “For GDP, there is no river or land that cannot be polluted.”
 
Originally published in a 2010 article in the U.S.-based Environment magazine, the map attracted attention on Weibo after being shared by @环保董良杰 under the title “Cancer Villages: Made in China.” The image comes, of course, at a time when Chinese social media is immersed in the ongoing furor over Japan’s claim of sovereignty over the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands. Yet the story of the cancer villages and environmental pollution is far more real and painful for millions of ordinary citizens than the ownership of a few faraway islands.
 
Observers have pointed out this irony. “The nationalist youth have all gone off to attack the Diaoyu Islands. No one cares about the poor mess at home,” wrote @暂无名2 in response to the cancer maps. @乡下宁宁 asked, “Not many people care about these [environmental] issues–do they think they can all move to the Diaoyu Islands?”
 
Indeed, anti-Japanese sentiment is potentially useful for the Chinese government, as an alternative vent for frustrations and anger that may otherwise explode over more volatile problems at home. In recent years people have become more willing to take to the streets to demand environmental justice and oppose factory construction, as they have done in Shifang, Sichuan province and Qidong, Jiangsu province in 2012, not to mention Dalian, Shenyang province and Haimen, Guangdong province in 2011. Meanwhile, public outcry over the Beijing city government’s failure to monitor air quality for PM2.5, the smallest and most hazardous particulate pollutants, largely took place over Weibo and other online social media platforms.
 
Enabled by and amplified over social media, these protests are a sign of China’s growing environmental consciousness and burgeoning unwillingness to tolerate air and water pollution. As @冀叟123 writes, “This is a serious, difficult question that requires collective action to solve and completely eradicate all kinds of pollution sources–to be like Shifang and Qidong, to protect the earth, sky, lake, and rivers that we rely on for survival, to let the fields slowly recover from the accumulated heavy metals, and give the earth a respite.” {{Chinese}}[[Chinese]]这是个积重难反的问题,要想解决必须全民行动,,彻底清除各类污染源。像什邡和启东那样保卫自己赖以生存的大地天空湖泊江河。让良田积淀的重金属残渣缓缓稀释,给土地一个缓歇。 [[Chinese]] Given the growing wave of environmental awareness, it is likely that there will be more debate and protest online–and offline.



More in-depth information
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 11:24:45 PM by erik »

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1836 on: March 03, 2013, 07:33:44 PM »
Shark kills number 100 million annually, research says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21629173


There seems to be no let-up in the demand for shark fins for use in soup by Chinese communities

The most accurate assessment to date of the impact of commercial fishing on sharks suggests around 100 million are being killed each year.

The researchers say that this rate of exploitation is far too high, especially for a species which reproduces later in life.

The major factor driving the trade is the ongoing demand for shark fins for soup in Chinese communities.

The report has been published in the Journal Marine Policy.

Researchers admit that establishing the true level of global shark fishing is extremely difficult, as the quality of the data is poor. Many sharks that are caught have their fins removed at sea with the body dumped overboard. These fish are often not included in official reports.

Fin margin
 
However, the scientists estimate a mortality range of between 63 and 273 million sharks in 2010.

"There is a very large range and that speaks to the quality of data, which is not great," said Dr Demian Chapman from Stony Brook University in New York, US.

"Certainly 100 million is the median estimate and that's the best estimate there is," he added.

While the number of sharks being caught has not changed substantially between 2000 and 2010, the authors of the research argue that the commercial fishing fleets are simply changing location and the shark species they target in order to keep up with demand. The fear is that eventually these shark species will crash.

Fuelling the concern is the fact that many of the species that are most threatened are very slow to reproduce.

"A lot of the sharks that are prized in the trade take more than a decade to reach maturity," said Dr Chapman.

"There is a really razor-thin level of mortality that sharks can experience before their population trajectory becomes negative - that is really what's been happening.

"They are not reproducing fast enough to keep up with the rate we are pulling them out of the ocean," he added.

The biggest driver for shark fishing has been the demand for shark fin soup, a product that is seen as a luxury item among Chinese communities.

While fins are still being cut off sharks at sea, several countries including Canada, the US and the European Union have tried to restrict this by law.

But this has not had the desired effect, Dr Chapman explained.

"The problem is that the fins are so valuable that now people are not 'finning' the sharks at sea - they're keeping the whole thing. But it is still dead; the finning bans have not stopped the root problem."

On Sunday, negotiators from 178 countries will gather in Bangkok for the meeting of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). There are proposals to regulate the trade in five of the most threatened species of shark.

At a previous meeting in 2010, similar restrictions fell just short of the required-two thirds majority. This time, campaigners say they have broad support among developed and developing countries and are optimistic they will be able to muster the required votes.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1837 on: March 03, 2013, 07:40:28 PM »
Poaching boom sees thousands of elephants killed in Gabon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21352722


Around five tonnes of seized ivory were burned in Gabon last year

More than 11,000 elephants have been killed by ivory poachers in Gabon since 2004 according to new research.

The country is home to over half of Africa's forest elephants who are highly valued because of the quality of their tusks.

Campaigners say the situation in what was believed to be a safe haven for these elephants is "out of control."

They blame the ongoing high demand for jewellery and other ivory products in Asia.

Gabon holds about 13% of the forests of Central Africa but it is home to around 40,000 forest elephants, a smaller species that are attractive to poachers because their ivory is tinged with pink and is very hard.

The new research has been carried out by the Gabonese national parks agency (ANPN) alongside WWF and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

Cross border poachers
 
Dr Fiona Maisels of the WCS explained that they had analysed the population of elephants in the Minkebe national park and compared it with their data gathered in the same area 9 years ago.

"Between 44-77% of the elephants have been killed," she said. "In other words 11,100 elephants have been lost since 2004."

Much of the attention on elephant poaching has been in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo but with demand for ivory growing and prices rocketing in recent years, poachers have sought out the forest elephants in the vast expanses of Minkebe.

And despite the efforts of the Gabonese government to bolster anti-poaching patrols, according to Bas Huijbregts from WWF, the authorities are failing.

"In an area like Minkebe which is about 30,000 sq km, that's about the size of Belgium, without any roads. It is very difficult to track poachers here," he said.

The authorities believe that between 50 and 100 elephants per day were being killed in the park in 2011. Much of the poaching has been carried out by gangs from neighbouring Cameroon, with ivory carried across the northern border by porters.

The high prices being paid for ivory in Asian markets are having a knock-on effect on attempts to control the trade in Gabon says Bas Huijbregts.

"Such a high value commodity, it is corrupting governance on all levels - there are checkpoints all over the place, but no one ever detects that ivory," he said.

"When arrests are made, they are often obstructed by government people who have a stake in the trade as well."

In June last year Gabon's president Ali Bongo Ondimba ordered the burning of the country's stockpile of seized ivory. However the poaching continues and is leading many conservationists to question the long term survival of elephants in Africa.

Professor Lee White who heads Gabon's national park system said that despite their best efforts, the situation is running out of control.

"If we do not turn the situation around quickly, the future of the elephant in Africa is doomed," he said. "These new results illustrate starkly just how dramatic the situation has become."

Campaigners say that next month's meeting of the convention on the international trade in endangered species (CITES) will be an opportunity for global governments to strengthen measures against ivory poaching.

In the UK, WWF are seeking a million signatures on a petition to stamp out legal loopholes that allow the ivory trade to continue.

Offline Nick

  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 1541
  • Life Branches.
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1838 on: March 06, 2013, 11:17:21 AM »
Appeal to fear fallacy....?
"As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, without perceiving the unity of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya..."
 -Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1839 on: March 08, 2013, 06:46:59 PM »
The article below supports Michael's thesis of major changes happening rather sooner than later.

US scientists report big jump in heat-trapping CO2

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-scientists-report-big-jump-heat-trapping-co2

WASHINGTON (AP) — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures show.
 
Scientists say the rise in CO2 reflects the world's economy revving up and burning more fossil fuels, especially in China.
 
Carbon dioxide levels jumped by 2.67 parts per million since 2011 to total just under 395 parts per million, says Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
 
That's the second highest rise in carbon emissions since record-keeping began in 1959. The measurements are taken from air samples captured away from civilization near a volcano in Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
 
More coal-burning power plants, especially in the developing world, are the main reason emissions keep going up — even as they have declined in the U.S. and other places, in part through conservation and cleaner energy.
 
At the same time, plants and the world's oceans which normally absorb some carbon dioxide, last year took in less than they do on average, says John Reilly, co-director of Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Plant and ocean absorption of carbon varies naturally year to year.
 
But, Tans tells The Associated Press the major factor is ever-rising fossil fuel burning: "It's just a testament to human influence being dominant."
 
Only 1998 had a bigger annual increase in carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas from human activity. That year, 2.93 parts per million of CO2 was added. From 2000 to 2010, the world averaged a yearly rise of just under 2 parts per million. Levels rose by less than 1 part per million in the 1960s.
 
In 2009, the world's nations agreed on a voluntary goal of limiting global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial temperature levels. Since the mid-1800s temperatures haven already risen about 1.5 degrees. Current pollution trends translate to another 2.5 to 4.5 degrees of warming within the next several decades, Reilly says.
 
"The prospects of keeping climate change below that (2-degree goal) are fading away," Tans says.
 
Scientists track carbon pollution both by monitoring what comes out of factories and what winds up in the atmosphere. Both are rising at rates faster than worst-case scenarios that climate scientists used in their most recent international projections, according to Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.
 
That means harmful effects of climate change will happen sooner, Mann says.

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18307
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1840 on: March 15, 2013, 10:59:18 PM »
Things are touchy in Bangladesh just now. The Islamisists are creating havoc over the sentence of one of their leaders for war crimes during the split with Pakistan. It has got very little media coverage internationally. I keep up to date by checking into Telhelka, but Julie has FB connections to some Bangladeshies who are very worried about the unfolding of events there. Tinder-box is the word.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1841 on: March 21, 2013, 06:30:45 PM »
Number of Katrina-Like Hurricanes Could 'At Least Double' From Warming
Mar 19, 2013

http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20130319/number-katrina-hurricanes-could-least-double-warming

The number of Atlantic storms with magnitude similar to killer Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005, could rise sharply this century, environmental researchers reported on Monday.
 
Scientists have long studied the relationship between warmer sea surface temperatures and cyclonic, slowly spinning storms in the Atlantic Ocean, but the new study attempts to project how many of the most damaging hurricanes could result from warming air temperatures as well.
 
The extreme storms are highly sensitive to temperature changes, and the number of Katrina-magnitude events could double due to the increase in global temperatures that occurred in the 20th century, the researchers reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
If temperatures continue to warm in the 21st century, as many climate scientists project, the number of Katrina-strength hurricanes could at least double, and possibly rise much more, with every 1.8 degree F (1 degree C) rise in global temperatures, the researchers said.

erik

  • Guest
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1842 on: March 21, 2013, 06:33:38 PM »
Recent Storms Highlight Flaws In Top U.S. Weather Model
Mar 15, 2013

http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20130315/recent-storms-highlight-flaws-top-us-weather-model

The U.S., which pioneered the groundbreaking science of weather forecasting using mathematical simulations of the atmosphere, has fallen behind other nations when it comes to the accuracy of its global forecasting model. The consequences could be dire for people in harm's way if the U.S. is less prepared for extreme weather and climate events.
 
As Sandy was spinning its way northward from the Caribbean Sea, it was the model run by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) that sounded the earliest alarm. The European Center’s model projected about a week in advance that the storm would make an unprecedented and devastating left hook into the Mid-Atlantic coastline, wreaking havoc the likes of which parts of the East Coast had not seen in modern times.
 
The top-of-the-line U.S. weather forecasting model, known as the Global Forecasting System (GFS) didn’t catch on to that worst-case scenario until the storm was closer to making landfall in the U.S. That delay contributed to a large degree of uncertainty in the forecasts until just three to four days before the storm hit.
 
Fast-forward four months to the Feb. 7 blizzard that paralyzed the Northeast by dumping up to 40 inches of snow. Again, it was the European Center’s model that proved to be the most accurate, giving local officials throughout southern New England ample time to prepare, while the U.S. model vacillated between varying projections of the storm’s path, strength, and snowfall amounts.
 
NOAA has struggled to stem the financial bleeding from long-delayed and mismanaged weather and climate satellite programs. The end result is that NOAA’s operational weather capabilities are not keeping pace with those of other countries

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1843 on: March 21, 2013, 08:12:50 PM »
Right, the European Model has become the most accurate one in the past couple of years. Anytime a cyclone is afoot, there are always several models from which to choose. The European and GFS are just 2 among many. When you go to sites like Weather Underground, you get the results of many of them - I'd say at least 6 per storm. NOAA's site tends to stick with the GFS, but in their "Discussions" they consider many.

I noticed that the Weather Channel and the local weather stations here have begun to include the European Model prominently in their assessments/predictions. (That's not to say all the stations all over the US are using it, though.) The strength of the Euro has been acknowledged.

There is a weird political thing going on about the winter cyclones' predictions in the US. NOAA announced a while back that they would not cover them. It falls to the purview of the National Weather Service, and it's fuzzy to which model NWS adheres.

There's a controversial point dating back to Sandy: NOAA proclaimed that their 'responsibility' in its prediction ended after Sandy reached a certain status. Some blamed this abdication for the ill-preparedness of New Jersey and New York to receive it. There was more than the choice of "models" going on.

But, if you ask me, the NHC (NOAA) has messed up periodically, dating back to Ike. It all gets washed under the table, though. The public is understandably confused.  There is no one standing on the table shouting, and clearly asking the right questions of the right people.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 09:01:06 PM by Nichi »
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
Re: WE'RE STUFFED!!!
« Reply #1844 on: March 21, 2013, 09:23:38 PM »
But, if you ask me, the NHC (NOAA) has messed up periodically, dating back to Ike. It all gets washed under the table, though. The public is understandably confused.  There is no one standing on the table shouting, and clearly asking the right questions of the right people.

I think the ball is being dropped because of Bush's administration. It was under him that the trend came to light, to not "overdo" the warnings of catastrophe. Likewise, you have the political Right accusing the NWS and NOAA of being 'nay-sayers' and of crying 'wolf' (and of supporting Al Gore's point of view about climate change...)

The Republicans especially were unhappy, in 2008, when Gustav was over-predicted, causing interruption in their Convention, and the same thing happened to them in 2012. Right now my mind goes blank as to which storm it was in 2012 which almost disrupted their 2012 Convention. Poor babies.

But I recall very clearly that after Gustav, the predictions were glossed over regarding Ike, and as a result, the Bolivar Peninsula's residences were all but wiped out. There were actual news blackouts about Ike's devastation as well.

In short, "the weather" has become a miasma of mis- and dis-information.
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk