As I predicted, space X to get military contracts:)

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel

In article 571e0dd2-b3c9-475e-8212-6c7b50aad721
@i1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel

I suppose I should ask my co-worker how scary it was growing up in an
area that was below sea level. He lives in the US now, but visits his
relatives in the Netherlands about once every other year.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In the United States, Hurricane Sandy affected 24 states, including
the entire eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine and west across the
Appalachian Mountains to Michigan and Wisconsin, with particularly
severe damage in New Jersey and New York. Its storm surge hit New York
City on October 29, flooding streets, tunnels and subway lines and
cutting power in and around the city.[12][13] Damage in the US is
estimated at over $63 billion

did you know there were warnings of a superstorm doing major damage
and things could of been done affordably to mitigate many of its worst
effects.

however since it hadnt happened yet no one bothered to fund mitigation
since well it hasnt happened.........

many dont believe in global warming and or global change....

while mitigation could lessen the effects many prefer to ignore
it......

but with global warming, and our new nastier weather everyone will be
effected, by lower crop production, increasing sea levels,
superstorms, and all the damage all of these can do

Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are rising annually by
around three percent, placing Earth on track for warming that could
breach five degrees Celsius (9.0 degrees Fahrhenheit) by 2100, a new
study published on Sunday said. The figure — among the most alarming
of the latest forecasts by climate scientists — is at least double the
2C (3.6F) target set by UN members struggling for a global deal on
climate change. …

“We are on track for the highest emissions projections, which point to
a rise in temperature of between 4C (7.2F) and 6C (10.8F) by the end
of the century,” said Corinne le Quere, a carbon specialist at the
University of East Anglia, eastern England. “The estimate is based on
growth trends that seem likely to last,” she said in a phone
interview, pointing to the mounting consumption of coal by emerging
giants.

Other research has warned of potentially catastrophic impacts from a
temperature rise of this kind.

News
..








WASHINGTON -- As 2012 began, winter in the U.S. went AWOL. Spring and
summer arrived early with wildfires, blistering heat and drought. And
fall hit the eastern third of the country with the ferocity of
Superstorm Sandy.

This past year's weather was deadly, costly and record-breaking
everywhere – but especially in the United States.

If that sounds familiar, it should. The previous year also was one for
the record books.

"We've had two years now of some angry events," said Deke Arndt, U.S.
National Climatic Data Center monitoring chief. "I'm hoping that 2013
is really boring."

In 2012 many of the warnings scientists have made about global warming
went from dry studies in scientific journals to real-life video played
before our eyes: Record melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean. U.S.
cities baking at 95 degrees or hotter. Widespread drought. Flooding.
Storm surge inundating swaths of New York City.

All of that was predicted years ago by climate scientists and all of
that happened in 2012.

"What was predicted was there would be more of these things," said
Michel Jarraud, secretary general for the World Meteorological
Organization.

Globally, five countries this year set heat records, but none set cold
records. 2012 is on track to be the warmest year on record in the
United States. Worldwide, the average through November suggests it
will be the eighth warmest since global record-keeping began in 1880.

July was the hottest month in record-keeping U.S. history, averaging
77.6 degrees. Over the year, more than 69,000 local heat records were
set – including 356 locations in 34 states that hit their highest-ever
temperature mark.


America's heartland lurched from one extreme to the other without
stopping at "normal." Historic flooding in 2011 gave way to
devastating drought in 2012.

"The normal has changed, I guess," said U.S. National Weather Service
acting director Laura Furgione. "The normal is extreme."

While much of the U.S. struggled with drought that conjured memories
of the Dust Bowl, parts of Africa, Russia, Pakistan, Colombia,
Australia and China dealt with the other extreme: deadly and expensive
flooding.

But the most troubling climate development this year was the melting
at the top of the world, Jarraud said. Summer sea ice in the Arctic
shrank to 18 percent below the previous record low. The normally ice-
packed Arctic passages were open to shipping much of the summer, more
than ever before, and a giant Russian tanker carrying liquefied
natural gas made a delivery that way to prove how valuable this route
has become, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice
Data Center.

Also in Greenland, 97 percent of the surface ice sheet had some
melting. Changes in the Arctic alter the rest of the world's weather
and "melting of the ice means an amplifying of the warming," Jarraud
said.

There were other weather extremes no one predicted: A European winter
cold snap that killed more than 800 people. A bizarre summer windstorm
called a derecho in the U.S. mid-Atlantic that left millions without
power. Antarctic sea ice that inched to a record high. More than a
foot of post-Thanksgiving rain in the western U.S. Super Typhoon
Bopha, which killed hundreds of people in the Philippines and was the
southernmost storm of its kind.

The United States has had "some quiet years while the rest of the
world was quite wild," but that's not the case this year, Arndt said.
Insurance giant Munich Re in a report this fall concluded: "Nowhere in
the world is the rising number of annual natural catastrophes more
evident than in North America."

In 2011, the United States set a record with 14 billion-dollar weather
disasters. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a
preliminary count of 11 such disasters this year. And NOAA's official
climate extreme index, which tallies disasters and rare events like
super-hot days, is on pace to set its own record.

Arndt points to the geographic heart of America, the Mississippi
River, as emblematic.

On May 6, 2011, the Mississippi River at New Madrid, Mo., crested at
its highest point on record. Less than 16 months later on Aug. 30,
2012, the same spot on the river was more than 53 feet lower, hitting
an all-time low water mark.

The U.S. went through the same lurching extremes on tornadoes. Those
storms killed 553 people last year, Furgione said. This year began
with many tornadoes, then in April they just stopped. April to
November, normal tornado season, saw the fewest F1 or stronger
tornadoes in the U.S. ever.

"Every year is bringing different types of extreme weather and climate
events," NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco said. "All storms today are
happening in a climate-altered world."

Not everything is connected to man-made global warming, climate
scientists say. Some, like tornadoes, have no scientifically
discernible connection. Others, like the East Coast superstorm, will
be studied to see if climate change is a cause, although scientists
say rising sea levels clearly worsened flooding. They are more
convinced that the heat waves of last summer are connected to global
warming.

These are "clearly not freak events," but "systemic changes," said
climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute in
Germany. "With all the extremes that, really, every year in the last
10 years have struck different parts of the globe, more and more
people absolutely realize that climate change is here and already
hitting us."

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen, sometimes called the godfather
of global warming science, ran computer models that predicted the
decade of the 2010s would see many more 95-degree or hotter days and
much fewer subfreezing days. This year made Hansen's predictions
seemed like underestimates. For example, he predicted that in the
2010s Memphis would have on average 26 days of more than 95 degrees.
This year there were 47.

Scientists – both those studying global warming and those studying
hurricanes – have warned for more than a decade about a hurricane with
big storm surge hitting New York City and flooding the subways. That
happened with Sandy. Though it was never a major hurricane, it
stretched across nearly 1,000 miles in the U.S., bringing storm
surges, power outages to millions and even snow. Sandy killed more
than 125 people in the United States and at least 70 in the Caribbean.

For decades, scientists have predicted extensive droughts from global
warming. This year, the drought of 2012 was so extensive that nearly
2,300 counties – in almost every state – were declared agriculture
disasters. At one point this summer more than 65 percent of the Lower
48 was suffering from drought.

And with lack of water, came fire, something also mentioned as more
likely in scientific reports about global warming. Fire season in the
United States came earlier than normal and lasted longer, officials
said. Nearly 9.2 million acres – an area bigger than the state of
Maryland – have been burned by wildfire, the third most since accurate
recordkeeping began in 1960.

"Take any one of these events in isolation, it might be possible to
yell `fluke!' Take them collectively, it provides confirmation of
precisely what climate scientists predicted would happen decades ago
if we proceeded with business-as-usual fossil fuel burning, as we
have," Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann
said in an email. "And this year especially is a cautionary tale. What
we view today as unprecedented extreme weather will become the new
normal in a matter of decades if we proceed with business-as-usual."

On Dec 21, 8:30*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
As is usual with Bobbert, all of the following is pretty much all
nonsense...



bob haller wrote:
In the United States, Hurricane Sandy affected 24 states, including
the entire eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine and west across the
Appalachian Mountains to Michigan and Wisconsin, with particularly
severe damage in New Jersey and New York. Its storm surge hit New York
City on October 29, flooding streets, tunnels and subway lines and
cutting power in and around the city.[12][13] Damage in the US is
estimated at over $63 billion

did you know there were warnings of a superstorm doing major damage
and things could of been done affordably to mitigate many of its worst
effects.

however since it hadnt happened yet no one bothered to fund mitigation
since well it hasnt happened.........

many dont believe in global warming and or global change....

while mitigation could lessen the effects many prefer to ignore
it......

but with global warming, and our new nastier weather everyone will be
effected, by lower crop production, increasing sea levels,
superstorms, and all the damage all of these can do

gee nasa appears concerned, at least they have been spending money on
the situation....

http://e2s2.ndia.org/schedule/Docume...acts/12464.pdf

On Dec 21, 11:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

gee nasa appears concerned, at least they have been spending money on
the situation....

http://e2s2.ndia.org/schedule/Docume...acts/12464.pdf

Gee, I bet you didn't actually look at the slides...

Hint: *It was a 'networking' meeting, largely going nowhere,
Bobbert...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

My opinion on global warming also applies to the rest of my life......

RESPECT threats that could cause real harm..

if global warming is true the risks to our planet are very great. the
economic impact will be devastating. assumingit happens realtively
fast. while KSC will likely be underwater from storm surges, imagine
moving large numbers of people in from all the coasts in a worst
case most of florida could be underwater, with just a bunch of islands
remaining.....

so it would be better to do something NOW, than wait, although it may
be too late already...

cleaner air would be good for everyone so thats a plus.......

On Dec 21, 11:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

gee nasa appears concerned, at least they have been spending money on
the situation....

http://e2s2.ndia.org/schedule/Docume...acts/12464.pdf

Gee, I bet you didn't actually look at the slides...

Hint: *It was a 'networking' meeting, largely going nowhere,
Bobbert...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

there are islands in the pacific going away from the rise of sea
level, and alaska citys being relocated inland, due to flooding from
the rise in sea level.....

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:38:44, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article id,
says...

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:22:47, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article id,
says...

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:58:13, Jeff Findley
posted:


It's the "silo based launch" that's the truly stupid part of Bob's
"plan".

ISTM otherwise. To have a reasonably reliable emergency launch facility
sited on any likely part of the edges of the 48 that I can think of, the
vehicle needs to be completely protected from at least some of storm,
hurricane, sabotage, earthquake, and tsunami until very near launch
time. And it must be possible to launch in almost any weather. A silo
will do this. With appropriate construction, the silo can be above
ground like a grain silo rather than underground like an ICBM silo.

Russian rocket tradition has been to be able to launch on demand into a
full Siberian blizzard with incoming US nukes; US tradition has been to
hope for a nice day - or month. It shows.

A silo is an extremely expensive way to "harden" a launch site.

Hardening ICBMs with silos against a rain of nukes is expensive.
Hardening against most things except a *local* earthquake or a missile
is much cheaper.

Correct, so why bother with the expense of silo launch when hardened,
above ground, buildings and launch facilities would be far cheaper to
build and maintain?

You are too militaristic. You seem to think of a silo as ONLY the sort
of thing they put underground in the Great Plains, with a truly massive
lid, to launch ICBMs out of. Think instead of the silos that I suppose
they have in the Canadian wheatlands (if any). Something similar but
stouter, and guyed, inside berms, will protect a ready-to-fire launcher
from anything that Nature can provide other than a landslide, avalanche,
or pyroclastic flow - none of which is likely to occur in most parts of
the CONUS coast.

It would be, in fact, a moderately hardened building of peculiar shape.


ISTM that the US's best practical emergency launch hope for the
immediate future is to have a ready-use Falcon 9 in a reinforced hangar,
and to pay SpaceX to speed up on their ideas about roll it out, tank it
up, light it off.

Except DOD does not yet trust Falcon 9. SpaceX has gotten a contract to
launch one Falcon 9 and one Falcon Heavy, presumably so DOD can evaluate
the launchers and how SpaceX operates. Any suggestion that Falcon is
the solution to this (non-existent) problem is premature at best.

Indeed. With more care, you might have seen my word "hope"; and
"immediate future" is not "instant now". And this is not a DoD matter;
the Falcon manifest shows that many organisations expect to be able to
trust Falcon 9 soon. To actually get a sensible decision out of
Adequate US Authority AND to get round to building it will take a lot
longer than "soon".

If you're hoping and looking look to the future, I'd say the best hope
would be a Falcon launch vehicle with all reusable stages. Grasshopper
is flying now, proving it can be done and refining hardware, software,
and procedures.

That's the best hope for a regular launcher in the non-immediate future,
which is another matter entirely. Unless I (and Wikipedia) have missed
some news, Grasshopper has not yet exceeded the powered flight records
set in 1903 for duration and distance, and has less than doubled that
for altitude. And it has survived fewer landings.


To have a *reliable* quick NASA launch, one must at least have an
undamaged vehicle near at hand. For that, as space vehicles cannot be
hardened in the same way as ships (thick steel plate) can, one must have
a sufficiently hard storage facility. We have recently seen what US
East Coast weather can do : obviously the VAB, for example, is not quite
hard enough. But sufficiently hardened horizontal storage for a single
F9-sized vehicle just requires the sort of hangar that the RAF use for
protection of ready-use aircraft.

I doubt whether Florida weather can get much worse than MidWest weather
can get; and IIRC the MidWest has grain silos which usually survive the
local weather.

The VAB fared fairly well. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the only
building that was damaged. Surely the US is taking some chances by
having launch facilities in a hurricane prone area, but the fact is that
it's not important enough to warrant the sort of hardening Bob is
suggesting. Reasonable hardening of buildings and facilities would cost
*far* less than his silo proposal would cost.

Bob? Have you no kill rules? I'm only interested in what *I*, and the
few sane others here, are suggesting. For that, with the reasonable
probability of worse future weather than past weather, the VAB is
clearly not quite good enough - and too big - and IIRC the top does not
open.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

On Dec 22, 10:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

gee nasa appears concerned, at least they have been spending money on
the situation....

http://e2s2.ndia.org/schedule/Docume...acts/12464.pdf

Gee, I bet you didn't actually look at the slides...

Hint: *It was a 'networking' meeting, largely going nowhere,
Bobbert...

My opinion on global warming also applies to the rest of my life......

RESPECT threats that could cause real harm..

The problem is that you haven't a clue as to which threats are
credible and which are not, so you play Chicken Little.



if global warming is true the risks to our planet are very great. the
economic impact will be devastating. assumingit happens realtively
fast. while KSC will likely be underwater from storm surges, imagine
moving large numbers of people in from all the coasts * in a worst
case most of florida could be underwater, with just a bunch of islands
remaining.....

so it would be better to do something NOW, than wait, although it may
be too late already...

The problem is just which 'something' does it make sense to do and
just what do you do when you've ****ed away all your resources
fighting a non-existent threat or taking actions that just make things
worse and then a REAL threat that you need the expended resources to
counter presents itself?



cleaner air would be good for everyone so thats a plus.......

Uh, you understand that 'dirty' air helps prevent Global Warming,
since it blocks solar insolation from reaching the ground, right?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

actually dirty air can act like a blanket holding heat in......

pittsburgh is a excellent example in the winter, on clear nights the
temperature drops dramatically........

take the money wasted on the 2 wars in iraq and afghanistan .........

it could of been far better spent on global warming mitigation.......

when the coasts are flooding, and the poles melting, and bad storms
nationwide global warming will be a reality.....

global food shortages will be part of the new reality....