This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Dramatic Aerial Video Of Worst Ever Balkan Flooding
Wondering what Eastern Europe will blame its economic weakness on? No, not sanctions... but perhaps the second coming of Noah might slow things down a little. The overall death toll in the worst flooding in the Balkans has risen to at least 47 people. The images have to be seen to be believed.
Bosnia said Monday it was witnessing "the biggest exodus" since the 1990s war after the worst floods in a century inundated huge swathes of the Balkans, killing at least 47 people.
Muddy waters from the Sava River have submerged houses, churches, mosques and roads in Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia after record rainfall last week wreaked havoc across the region.
There were fears that dead bodies and animal carcasses could lead to disease outbreaks, while officials warned that 120,000 unexploded mines from the conflicts of the 1990s could be dislodged.
"More than 100,000 people" have been evacuated in Bosnia alone, said Stanko Sliskovic of Bosnia's emergency services, with tens of thousands more displaced in neighbouring countries.
"This is the biggest exodus since the end of the 1992-1995 war," he told AFP.
Dozens of towns and villages have been cut off and over 2,000 landslides already reported, with water levels expected to continue rising in the coming days.
In Kosova, a hamlet between the northwestern Bosnian towns of Doboj and Maglaj which was badly hit by flooding, people's homes were almost visibly moving as the loose terrain shifted.
Around 20 homes "have slid down 30 metres (yards) since yesterday. They will not exist tomorrow," a rescue worker said.
Bosnian Foreign Minister Zlatko Lagumdzija said more than a quarter of the country's population of 3.8 million "has been affected by the floods" after the heaviest rainfalls on record began last week.
"Right now, more than one million people have no water," he said.
In Serbia, some 600,000 of its 7.2 million inhabitants were affected by "severe floods following the heaviest rains the Balkans have witnessed in 120 years," the UN's World Food Programme said in a statement.
"This is Armageddon, I can't describe it otherwise," Nedeljko Brankovic told AFP from Krupanj, a town in the southwestern Serbia. "Houses are literally washed away and landslides are everywhere."
The death toll from the floods rose to 47 Monday after two new victims were found overnight in a village near the western Serbian town of Sabac.
Neighbouring Croatia has also evacuated thousands of people from along the river Sava.
Rescuers told of wrenching scenes as they finally reached cut-off villages, with dozens of people huddling on top of the tallest houses with no water or food.
"It was like a tsunami," said Suad Garanovic, resident of the Bosnian village of Topcic Polje, as he looked over his house, now drowned in mud.
"This is the second time I've fled my house. The first time was during the war. Now, just like then, I've lost everything," said Nihad Smajlovic in a nearby hamlet.
»
- 23005 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I have an old, and quite large, barometer, fastened to one of my house walls. It has a dial on it that gives an indication of the direction of the weather from hot to cold and from raining to sunny. The top centre indicates CHANGEABLE. The weather has always been changeable, it's because of the SUN and if the scammers could get away with it they would tax it. Because they haven't found a way to tax the sun,--yet--,they started with " global warming" then "climate change"and no doubt have more BS up their collective sleeves when they think their tax raising ability is under threat.
Serbs are hardcore survivalists. They will manage.
The Bosnians aka the moslooms, fuck'em. Hope many mosloooms from Bosnia dies and go meet their Maker and their 999 virgins.
It's Bush's fault
At least one pig is now free.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/the-rains-the-floods-and-the-destr...
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/there-will-be-a-great-deluge-you-w...
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/floods-will-be-commonplace-and-you...
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/the-rains-the-floods-and-the-destruction-of-crops-to-come-will-be-the-result-of-a-chastisement-from-heaven/
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/there-will-be-a-great-deluge-you-will-also-witness-smaller-floods-across-all-countries/
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/floods-will-be-commonplace-and-you-will-know-which-parts-of-the-world-anger-my-father-the-most/
"heaviest rainfalls on record began last week."
"Right now, more than one million people have no water,"
Send these people some barrels or something I guess?
The so called 97% "consensus" by co-author John Cook (failed cartoonist and admittedly not a scientist) was trash before it was pal reviewed and accepted by UQ. Nonetheless, it has been totally and completely debunked. It seems their mathematical skills weren't quite refined enough to undertake such a monumental task. Either that or they are just simply dishonest. Actually, the answer is both.
So, James_Cole and Flakmeister, are you going to engage in discussion or just have a link war? Neither of you apparently know much about weather or climate, and both have what some refer to as Skeptical Science Syndrome. That means lying, deleting posts, censoring, changing threads months after they are posted and other such shenanigans is accepted as normal discourse.
Anyway, on the SkS 97% meme:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-...
Then, Cook et al refused to release their data and methods, then claimed they did but of course lied. However, that is the next step to be exposed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/18/shollenberger-calls-cooks-and-univ...
As for the OP, there have been floods in China long before the invention of the SUV that killed millions, but of course useful idiots believe history began in 1979.
BTW Flakmeister, where's the tropical tropospheric hot spot hiding?
Give it a break...
If Watts was on to something he could have easily published it... He wasn't and he didn't.... QED....
Your second point is a strawman....
As for your third point, explain exactly how it you would currently isolate it and meausure it... You know, the technical details of getting a precise measurement of the microwave brilliance from a well defined altitude....
BTW, I use SkS as a tool, not a crutch like you seem to use WTFUWT...
#1 This whole idea of consensus is not science at all. It is herd mentality.
It is published, can't you read? There are many factors why Cook's paper is crap. UQ has threatened legal action if the witheld data is released by Brandon Shollenberger. He called their bluff, and now the cat is out of the bag. Don't be a lemming.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
It is blogs that expose dishonest people like Cook, Mann, Santer, Trenberth, Jones and the rest of the climate pimps.
Junk science doesn't need "peer review" to be debunked regardless. GIGO
You did not answer my question, but instead deflected.
The various layers of atmospheric temperature have been measured for several decades with both weather balloons and satellite. The "enhanced greenhouse effect" does not exist per what the computer programmer"s engineering code output. Climate models were in error by 200-400%. This is well documented. In fact, climate models are wrong on virtually all climate metrics.
So you tell me then how NOAA/NASA/Hadley can measure SAT down to .001 deg precision with thermometers next to parking lots, on rooftops and in the middle of growing urban cities. The current trend is derived from "adjustments" to the raw data by cooling the past and warming the present. In the U.S., it wasn't until after 1999 (Hansen acknowledged the U.S. had no such warming trend) that the data starting being adjusted which turned a slight 100 year cooling trend into a strong warming trend. To believe the government scientists, the 1930's was only a mildly warm decade.
BTW, even with all the tinkering and data manipulation, there has been no global warming for 15+ years. Now the job of government climate "scientists" is to make up excuses for why their models are so demonstrably wrong, and convince the drones that believe their every utterance.
Oh I have hundreds of references not related to WUWT, but it is the most widely read climate discussion blog.
This is how the fraud is done for AGW drones (you know who you are) to feed on and indoctrinate young skulls full of mush with propaganda.
From the NYT May 19, 2014, they post a picture of Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay, Alaska, first from 1941 then 2004 and recite the usual "scientists say" axiom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/science/the-melting-isnt-glacial.html?...
And from the EPA last updated June 2013 however it was originally created years prior to that.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/glaciers.html
The exact pictures, same dates, with a note to scare the little kiddies (and many adults) to death: (note it says "at least the last 50 years"......when their parents and grandparents began destroying the world's glaciers)
They conveniently leave out a picture dated 1950 of the same glacier from USGS:
http://gallery.usgs.gov/photos/659#.U3wK8SiHg9F
Also missing is a historical map of Glacier Bay showing the glacier melt started 250 years ago. The truth is, the vast majority of glacier melt occurred before 1960.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
And that's how people (you know who you are) are fooling themselves into believing all this global warming bullshit.
Get your buddies to write a paper...
Surely the competence is for sale at a fraction of the current PR campaign. Hell, the orginal Hockey Stick probabaly cost all of $2 million to amass the data...
----
Weren't you going to tell me how you measure that hot spot? Or did you just give up?
How about the clear signal of the cooling stratosphere? Explain how that arises for us will you?
Edit: Damn, forgot to mention that your fancy reference is not a peer-reviewed journal, it is nothing more than an opinion piece... You can be damn sure that anything with Monckton passing peer-review would be trumpeted loudly...
Obfuscation, ad hom, Appeal to Authority and misdirection; every AGW True Believer's favorite weapons.
Satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures have been used for 35 years and are well proven. Radiosondes go back to at least the 1950's. They, satellites, are regularly calibrated (UAH uses NIST tracebale target, RSS uses climate models) and all adjustments are documented. Currently RSS is reporting cooler temperatures compared to UAH, likely due to diurnal drift, for which Spencer/Christy will work with Mears to sort it out. If you need to understand how they work, look it up. I'm not doing it for you.
Since observations disagree with model results, which widely vary within themselves due to parametrization differences, the new argument by AGW pseudoscience promoters is to simply claim the models are correct and observations must be wrong. Ah, yes, aren't unfalsifiable hypotheses great? No matter what observations are, it always agree with the "theory".
The "enhanced greenhouse effect" is the main tenet of AGW. This includes temperature rising with height through the middle and upper troposphere, then cooling of the stratosphere above because the heat is "trapped" below, so it is said. Neither is occurring, and please, no "long term trend" stratospheric cooling malarkey. The cooling that occurred was due to two major volcano eruptions (Pinatubo 1991 and El Chichon 1982) and did so in step changes. Since 1994 the stratosphere has been warming, exactly opposite the "theory".
Another question that can be expected you will not answer: a small change in cloud cover can account for virtually all warming and cooling of the planet. Has that been ruled out? Source please.
As is the case with many AGW activists masquerading as scientists, Ben Santer refused to release the data used in Santer 2008, which was a refutation of Douglass 2007 showing climate models did not agree with observations. After two years of obfuscation, and multiple FOIA requests and legal wrangling, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a thorough paper refuting Santer 08 despite 'Team' efforts to keep it from being published. Of course, as we found out via Climategate emails, preventing dissenting research from being published is the MO of pro-AGW "scientists".
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmo...
Still didn't address my points...
Explain how the measurement of the brilliance is limited to the region in question...
As for Climategate, really?
Maybe you should read up a little about how things are actually done:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
PS be sure to check out Figs 6 and 7, their plots of the Stratosphere temp...
Or explore for yourself here
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
---
BTW, yet another bullshit cut and paste on your part...
Flakmeister, you made this easier than I thought once we get past your logical fallacy talking points.
Don't you think when I said I've been following this global warming scam for 25 years it was meant as a hint you may be in over your head? Yes Flakmeister, I know a thing or two about this stuff.
Look at your linked cartoon from RSS. As I stated, the lower stratosphere has been warming since 1994 (RSS is effectively zero, other sources show warming). Note the two step changes corresponding to the two volcanoes in the tropics. You just hoisted yourself on your own petard. This is verified by downloading the data from RSS and charting it. Of course, I can give you more references discussing the lack of cooling in the stratosphere per AGW "theory".
http://i.imgur.com/CLII2Pa.png
Let's make this very simple for you to understand, just one line of text from Santer 2005 (the center of controversy from the beginning, refuted in 2007, then Santer 2008 in 2010 and several times since):
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/881407 (Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt et al)
You incorrectly posted the global TLT which if you'd bother to notice, RSS shows ZERO trend for over 17.5 years. It's really easy to graph it, but that appears to be above your pay grade, but I will do it upon request. Nonetheless, we will use TLT for the sake of discussion.
So first, you need to look at the correct data set; TLT Tropics as it is the region of the ubiquitous missing "hot spot", which RSS defines as 30S to 30N (it should be 20-25 latitude, but what's 10 deg among friends right?), with the yellow band being the the CMIP5 climate model predictions. Even eyeballing one can see the gross error in climate model simulations.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature
TLT tropics 25S to 25N can be acceessed here:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Next, we can use UAH which is very easy to access data from and construct graphs for analysis. Look under the column 'Trpcs'. See where it says 'Tren'. Notice it is .070 or 1/2 the rate of the global trend. According to AGW "theory" it should be warming strongest at the equator just as IPCC (Santer 2005 was used in AR4) stated, you know, "trapping" all that heat from CO2. ROFL
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/
Also, temperature data can be accessed from KNMI, which I use it regularly:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
It's becoming clear your greatest strength is being an obstinate ass and really don't know what you're talking about.
More from Forbes:
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmi...
They are welcome to submit a paper demonstrating the incorrect methodology or scientific deficiencyto any number of journals....
Why don't they?
Save your cut and paste shit for Yahoo!
Hey Dummy.
Still not at a 1000 cuts yet? Must be coming up soon or are you subconsciously stuck at 999?
Cue the parade of clowns....
Zzzzz...
Global warming is backed by nothing but physics and chemistry.
Calling it global cooling is backed by the full faith & credit of Soros, Kochs, TEPCO, Exxon, House of Saud & bloggers pan-handling for bitcoin.