Tourism in Venice is Reaching Meltdown

[Klingan]

It seems like Venice is being flooded as we speak. Here's an article on the matter (in German)

[sylla]

It seems like Venice is being flooded as we speak. Here's an article on the matter (in German)

More or less, something like:

 

"Venice is once again under water. Almost half of the urban area is flooded...

 

...the flood was created by a combination of heavy rain, wind and tides.

 

At the Ducal Palace ... the water sometimes rose as high as half a meter...

 

... the sea level is already more than 24 inches higher than 100 years ago and by now it climbs by an average of three millimeters per year."

[caesar novus]

... the sea level is already more than 24 inches higher than 100 years ago and by now it climbs by an average of three millimeters per year[/i]."

3mm x 100yr = 6 inches. That indicates a 4 fold slowdown of supposed 24inch per century rate of rise, which "proves" rising CO2 levels are a benefit. Frankly, all of this is nonsense. Last year there were articles bemoaning "Venice sea levels plunge to 14-year low" and how fire and ambulance boats couldn't get about http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/20/2167375.htm

Above chart shows the seasonal variation of sea levels in Split Croatia, which is only half way up the Adriatic arm where things only begin to get weird. Venice sees the full effect, and is peaking now and will be near trough at the same month the picture was taken http://www.hhi.hr/mijene/mijene_en/promj_e.htm

 

Doesn't it bother anyone that Split is seeing no rise of sea levels the last half century, yet any "global" source of sea rise would have to pass by Split to get to Venice? Sounds the same as my local fraudulant gov't employed earth scientists who show and tell to newspapers how atoll islands are sinking and bode badly for the rest of the world. Put aside that atoll sinking is a known and natural phenomena of volcanos sinking by their own weight, but you can't have a rising global sea that affects one place at a time. There is no canary for the coal mine - it would affect everywhere nearly simultaneously.

 

The Venice Lagoon is a shallow lake with very confined outlet. Have you ever motored around, such as to Burano? Silt is clogging up almost everywhere preventing rainwater from even draining from one side of the lagoon to the other. My earlier post linked up to steps that were being made for better drainage. Weather hypochondria has been a mainstay for centuries, don't exaggerate global vs local drainage effects as you can visualize from the depiction below

Edited December 1, 2009 by caesar novus

[sylla]

... the sea level is already more than 24 inches higher than 100 years ago and by now it climbs by an average of three millimeters per year[/i]."

3mm x 100yr = 6 inches. That indicates a 4 fold slowdown of supposed 24inch per century rate of rise, which "proves" rising CO2 levels are a benefit. Frankly, all of this is nonsense.

Sorry, my bad ; the article posted by Klingan makes perfect sense, as it mentions "24 cm.", not "24 inches", as I wrongly wrote above.

(BTW, 3mm/year x 100yr = 11.81 inches/century).

 

Above chart shows the seasonal variation of sea levels in Split Croatia, which is only half way up the Adriatic arm where things only begin to get weird. Venice sees the full effect, and is peaking now and will be near trough at the same month the picture was taken http://www.hhi.hr/mijene/mijene_en/promj_e.htm

 

Doesn't it bother anyone that Split is seeing no rise of sea levels the last half century, yet any "global" source of sea rise would have to pass by Split to get to Venice?

Nope; what bother us is that the Adriatric, as any other sea, is rising, as it is clearly explained in that same Croatian article.

(What you try to prove with your posted graphic I simply can't understand, as it shows seasonal variations, not annual net increases)

Edited December 1, 2009 by sylla

[caesar novus]

In spite of that, I'm sure this will not be "enough" until you say "the last word"; thanks in advance.

Physician, heal thyself! Only actually annoying when you stray off topic into subjects you only apparently know by google

 

The lowest levels of many Venetian palaces have already been abandoned due to waterlogging even before the so-called warming period,

Do you mean across the Little Ice Age? Can you quote your source(s)?

It's a basic thing anyone that has the slightest interest in Venice will encounter either personally or in pictures or print. You aren't a brain in a jar with internet capabilities, are you? (sorry, too cheeky, but you are expounding on the subject)

 

Life has cycles that come and go - enjoy what they give and don't pointlessly fret if they take away.

... especially if any alternative might affect our pockets in the short term, Gods forbid!

More like it will loot the world for almost no effect. You later go on about the irrelevance of economists and how Lomborg agrees there is a "menace". The menace he explains is green overreaction. The warming trends can only be imperceptably delayed by brutal and economically crushing steps with the current technology. Added to that is the inherant way gov't responds to lobbies for exceptions and it's rigidity. For example CO2 producers can switch to much worse greenhouse gasses like NOx.

 

There is a principle of compounding... saving money early will just mushroom your retirement result. The opposite of that occurs with a overreaction to warming... you expend too much with too little result in ignorance of the actual core problem and possible appropriate bullets to address it. I have seen developing countries pull themselves out of grim existance in spite of the threat of anti-globalists and now they have to dodge the green gestapo just to get to a point where they can have the luxury of taking care of environmental things, as the wealthy inevitably do.

 

I have background of being a green fanatic (still maniacally frugal with energy - do any of you leave vehicles garaged till the battery dies, while backpacking groceries a long way home?), and also long dwelled in scientific and economic fields. The foundations of green populism ranges from baldface lies (Gore) to the new style of innuendo (newspaper articles about melting iceburgs, which provably cannot raise sealevels at all due to Archimedes principle). I have sat in with biologists discussing new findings of vast greenhouse gas output by plants, and how they can't publish it because it would give the politically incorrect some ammunition (and reduce their funds and edgy relevance). I have sat with astronomers who have tried to get climatologists to run newly found planets thru their models based on estimated cloud cover and sun/star light. Climate gurus then admit their models can't cope with the wild contradictory effects of vapor in atmosphere, which is key in their greenhouse projections.

 

Well this is a few scattershots I reluctantly post because inappropriate digressive charges were made. I'm not going to read thru replies that try to pick them apart - this isn't the place and I haven't time or interest in warming debates. Instead sink your analytical teeth into the video at http://www.booktv.org/Program/10779/Just+F...esponsibly.aspx

Points to consider: The green police will surely attack and penalize distant food transportation, while counterintuitively it has been discovered thru the unregulated market as a huge boon to cutting resource waste, besides being cheaper:

- energy cost is virtually nil as a percentage of food cost.

- much more abundant and cheap water afar typically rather than taking drastic steps to tap locally

- less need for fertilizers (massive greenhouse culprit), pesticides at appropriate growing locations

 

The green intuitive grasp of science is ignorant and backwards. Not only iceburgwise, but for organic food for example (butcher of land productivity). As the speaker says, the hugest difference by far is going to vegetarianism - the waste and greenhouse gas of cattle production is mega. Naturally as a vegetarian I will suffer from dufus gov't climate regulations which attack the wrong things. Feel lucky that veggies don't form a gestapo and force you into complience like the green idiots

Edited December 1, 2009 by caesar novus

[caesar novus]

(What you try to prove with your posted graphic I simply can't understand, as it shows seasonal variations, not annual net increases)

I respond because you posted before my above post arrived. The graphic shows that the current floods are seasonal phenomena, as are the dryouts later in the year. Not a canary in a coal mine. Get worried from that after the 2014 flood abatement project is supposed to finish.

 

Edit: Oh, I see... I had assumed you remembered the Split sea level graph I posted on the previous page here. It is also on the Croatian web page posted above. It shows THE CENTRAL ADRIATIC SEALEVEL HAS NOT CHANGED IN PAST HALF CENTURY! They try to point out a slight uptick in last couple of years, but obviously that is in the statistical noise level unless it extends itself. You would go broke believing in such a tiny indication upward in the stock market, for example.

Edited December 2, 2009 by caesar novus

[sylla]

Denial + nihilism + insults + arguments ad hominem = not a very strong case .

The rules of evidence are not the strong point here (for that, even Google may help) .

But there's no need to ignore the bias any more; no amount of evidence will ever be enough when the conclusion is known in advance by your own pocket .

BTW, no need to be disturbed; if anyone is ever forced to face his own share of global responsibility, it would not be by poor me , but by his local government...

 

Now, regarding the following...

In spite of that, I'm sure this will not be "enough" until you say "the last word"; thanks in advance.

Physician, heal thyself! Only actually annoying when you stray off topic into subjects you only apparently know by google

... sorry, but I was not talking to you (but if it fits you, go ahead).

Edited December 2, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

Denial + nihilism + insults + arguments ad hominem = not a very strong case .

The rules of evidence are not the strong point here (for that, even Google may help) .

But there's no need to ignore the bias any more; no amount of evidence will ever be enough when the conclusion is known in advance by your own pocket .

BTW, no need to be disturbed; if anyone is ever forced to face his own share of global responsibility, it would not be by poor me , but by his local government...

 

Now, regarding the following...

In spite of that, I'm sure this will not be "enough" until you say "the last word"; thanks in advance.

Physician, heal thyself! Only actually annoying when you stray off topic into subjects you only apparently know by google

... sorry, but I was not talking to you (but if it fits you, go ahead).

 

No I think the last time on this thread you were probably talking to me but a quick check on several of the other discussion threads will quickly assure any reader of how many threads are ended by yourself.

 

Sylla do not take this the wrong way but we are both Patricians now so how about taking things a little lighter.

 

Not every posting, which doesn't agree with your views, needs to be taken as a personal affront which your subsequent postings have all too often given the impression of it having done.

 

You also don't have to beat every topic to death until no one can be bothered posting on it any further. A quicker agreement to disagree or even, as I have sometimes been known to do, admitting when an error has occured in a posting will probably make life a lot less stressful for all of us.

 

Chill out a bit mate you have made a lot of good postings but try for a bit less aggro in future please.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

No I think the last time on this thread you were probably talking to me but a quick check on several of the other discussion threads will quickly assure any reader of how many threads are ended by yourself.

Maybe I had something to say

 

Even extreme disagreeing can't be mistaken for personal affront .

 

It seems that on the ongoing risk for Venice we also agree

Edited December 2, 2009 by sylla