How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
Harry Hope
A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
but likely.
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
14 Jan 2010
How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
should assume that the world�s oceans will rise by at least two meters
� roughly seven feet � this century.
But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
sheets melt.
by rob young and orrin pilkey
The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
global warming on the planet.
But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
report, issued in 2007.
Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
poles.
Its results were predictably conservative � a maximum of a two-foot
rise this century � and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
report that factored in some melting of Greenland�s ice sheet.
The IPCC�s 2007 sea level calculations � widely recognized by the
academic community as a critical flaw in the report � have caused
confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
created fodder for global warming skeptics.
But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets.
Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
The message for the world�s leaders and decision makers is that sea
level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
seven-foot rise in sea level.
This number is not a prediction.
But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
but likely.
Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in
sea level this century.
In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
expansion of ocean water.
Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
were minor components.
But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
entire ice cap melts).
The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
Seeking to correct the IPCC�s failure to come up with a comprehensive
forecast for sea level increase, a number of state panels and
government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
include an examination of melting ice sheets.
For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
gates.
Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
low-lying coastal areas � including much of the U.S. east coast � is
foolhardy and irresponsible.
Who is at risk?
Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
climate during the next century.
Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
of the developing world.
The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
of environmental refugees will be created � 15 million people live at
or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
disrupted, creating political instability.
The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
Nile, and Mississippi.
Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
create very high rates of what is known as �local, relative sea level
rise.�
The rising seas will displace the vast majority of people in these
delta regions.
Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
decimated by rising sea level � a three-foot sea level rise will
eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam � causing a food
crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
the financial resources to fight land loss.
Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
relative sea level rise expected.
Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
was an �ineluctable fact� that within the lifespan of some people
alive today, �the vast majority of that land will be underwater.�
He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
for area residents and for not having the �honesty and compassion� to
tell Louisiana residents the �truth�: Someday, they will have to leave
the delta.
The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
of the Tuvalu atolls.
Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
island nation.
The world�s major coastal cities will undoubtedly receive most of the
attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
three-foot rise.
This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
Francisco.
Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
threatened major cities outside of North America.
Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
Twelve percent of the world�s open ocean shorelines are fronted by
barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
development on most of them � save for those completely surrounded by
massive seawalls.
Impacts in the United States, with a 3,500-mile long barrier island
shoreline extending from Montauk Point on Long Island to the Mexican
border, will be huge.
The only way to preserve the barrier islands themselves will be to
abandon them so that they may respond naturally to rising sea level.
_____________________________________________________
Harry
Tab182
Seven Feet???
Man you can kiss most of Florida and big chunks of four other southern
states goodbye!
Roger Coppock
estimate.
Sea level rise is the last effect of anthropogenic global warming
we'll
see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
VFW
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
This causes me to remember the folks in the Bayous of Louisiana . They
built everything on floats as the yearly flooding was something that you
couldn't reason with. yes, even the chicken coops floated. Travel was by
boat. Ahead of the times?
These people didn't welcome news reporters. actually nobody from the
"system"
good luck all.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
Sirius
> The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
> global warming on the planet.
>
> But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable was
> the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest report,
> issued in 2007.
IPCC says 0.6m or less and it is a high estimate.
Others, like Niels-Axel Morner (professor emeritus Unit of Palegeophysics
and Geodynamics, at Stockholm University) say 0.10m +-0.1m.
http://www.sasnet.lu.se/palgeosth.html
Ocean level variation in the Maldive Islands has been 0.0m over the last
3 decades.
leona...@gmail.com
> 7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> estimate.
ø At the current IPCC current rate of 3.3 mm pa
= 13 inches per century, it would take 646.85
years to reach 7 feet. Since in fact there is no
measureable 'sea level' rise, the whole issue is
moot.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Where do you find this wild alarmist garbage,
the idiots that write it can't possibly know that
ice can only melt as a function of surface area,
and the big ice sheets have almost all of their
surface at high altitude, else they would have
already melted.
Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
I M @ good guy
And what is Yale, a law school, or has alarmist
journalism become the latest rage for a major?
I M @ good guy
What other effects, sprained wrists from
hand wringing?
lorad
yep..
Stuff like the tornado alley extending to the east cost and record
droughts in the southeast (like in Georgia) and out west.
What's that? It already happened?
I M @ good guy
<shit...@crawford.net> wrote:
>If you really believe that the oceans will rise and you have to do
>something, what makes more reasonable sense? To adapt to the possible
>rising waters by creative engineering at a reasonable cost or to
>attempt to control nature in order to prevent it from happening at
>all?
>
>A lot of people these days are chosing the latter. Humanity truly has
>gone insane.
Do you really think the people preaching
reduction of fossil fuel use are setting an example?
Like the environmentalist that owns a 707?
Catoni
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ha, ha, ha, before then, we will be into another glacial period with
cities flattened by great sheets of ice. Does anyone really think that
this interglacial period will last forever ?
buzz
> On Jan 16, 10:50 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> 7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
>> estimate.
>
> = 13 inches per century, it would take 646.85
> years to reach 7 feet. Since in fact there is no
> measureable 'sea level' rise, the whole issue is
> moot.
>
>
However, if you cook the data, you can make a case for anything, and the
cool-aid drinkers will fall for it every time.
Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
can't wait".
Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
Tom P
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>> but likely.
>>
>>
>> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>>
>> 14 Jan 2010
>>
>> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>>
>> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
>> � roughly seven feet � this century.
>> But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
>> inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
>> sheets melt.
>>
>> by rob young and orrin pilkey
>>
>>
>> The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>> are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
>> global warming on the planet.
>>
>> But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
>> was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
>> report, issued in 2007.
>>
>> Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
>> Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
>> in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
>> masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
>> most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
>>
>> Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
>> construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
>> be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
>> expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
>> poles.
>>
>> rise this century � and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
>> report that factored in some melting of Greenland�s ice sheet.
>>
>> The IPCC�s 2007 sea level calculations � widely recognized by the
>> academic community as a critical flaw in the report � have caused
>> confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
>> created fodder for global warming skeptics.
>>
>> But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
>> rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
>> years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
>> Antarctic ice sheets.
>>
>> Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
>> will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
>>
>> level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
>>
>> Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
>> governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
>> seven-foot rise in sea level.
>>
>> This number is not a prediction.
>>
>> But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
>> long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
>> especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
>>
>> a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>> but likely.
>>
>> Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in
>> sea level this century.
>>
>> In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
>> expansion of ocean water.
>>
>> Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
>> were minor components.
>>
>> But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
>> level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
>> Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
>> melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
>> entire ice cap melts).
>>
>> The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
>>
>> government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
>> include an examination of melting ice sheets.
>>
>> For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
>> County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
>> level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
>>
>> A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
>> the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
>> gates.
>>
>> Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
>> in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
>> foolhardy and irresponsible.
>>
>> Who is at risk?
>>
>> Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
>> climate during the next century.
>>
>> Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
>> industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
>> left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
>> of the developing world.
>>
>> The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
>>
>> Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
>> storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
>> or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
>>
>> Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
>> disrupted, creating political instability.
>>
>> The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
>> rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
>> Nile, and Mississippi.
>>
>> Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
>> rise.�
>> The rising seas will displace the vast majority of people in these
>> delta regions.
>>
>> Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
>> eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam � causing a food
>> crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
>>
>> The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
>> the financial resources to fight land loss.
>>
>> Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
>> restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
>> Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
>> relative sea level rise expected.
>>
>> Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
>> alive today, �the vast majority of that land will be underwater.�
>> He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
>> tell Louisiana residents the �truth�: Someday, they will have to leave
>> the delta.
>>
>> The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
>> century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
>> future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
>>
>> Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
>> because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
>> saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
>>
>> In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
>> 55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
>> New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
>> of the Tuvalu atolls.
>>
>> Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
>>
>> The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
>> meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
>> island nation.
>>
>> attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
>>
>> Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
>> measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
>> three-foot rise.
>>
>> This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
>> as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
>>
>> Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
>> Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
>> Francisco.
>>
>> Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
>> threatened major cities outside of North America.
>>
>> Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
>> leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
>>
>> Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
>> Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
>> must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
>>
>> barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
>>
>> Impacts in the United States, with a 3,500-mile long barrier island
>> shoreline extending from Montauk Point on Long Island to the Mexican
>> border, will be huge.
>>
>> The only way to preserve the barrier islands themselves will be to
>> abandon them so that they may respond naturally to rising sea level.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>>
>> Harry
>
> Where do you find this wild alarmist garbage,
> the idiots that write it can't possibly know that
> ice can only melt as a function of surface area,
> and the big ice sheets have almost all of their
> surface at high altitude, else they would have
> already melted.
>
> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
>
>
You wouldn't need to melt all of it to raise 7 feet. Less than a third
of the Greenland icecap would be sufficient. Plus there's even more ice
waiting to melt in the Antarctic. As far as the timeline goes, if you
work out the latent heat, the volume of ice and the estimated forcing,
it's quite easy to come up with a time of 100 years for this to happen.
I M @ good guy
>I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>> but likely.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>>>
>>> 14 Jan 2010
>>>
>>> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>>>
>>> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
>>> should assume that the world’s oceans will rise by at least two meters
>>> — roughly seven feet — this century.
>>>
>>> But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
>>> inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
>>> sheets melt.
>>>
>>> by rob young and orrin pilkey
>>>
>>>
>>> The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>>> are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
>>> global warming on the planet.
>>>
>>> But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
>>> was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
>>> report, issued in 2007.
>>>
>>> Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
>>> Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
>>> in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
>>> masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
>>> most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
>>>
>>> Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
>>> construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
>>> be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
>>> expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
>>> poles.
>>>
>>> Its results were predictably conservative — a maximum of a two-foot
>>> rise this century — and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
>>> report that factored in some melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.
>>>
>>> The IPCC’s 2007 sea level calculations — widely recognized by the
>>> academic community as a critical flaw in the report — have caused
>>> confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
>>> created fodder for global warming skeptics.
>>>
>>> But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
>>> rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
>>> years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
>>> Antarctic ice sheets.
>>>
>>> Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
>>> will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
>>>
>>> The message for the world’s leaders and decision makers is that sea
>>> level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
>>>
>>> Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
>>> governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
>>> seven-foot rise in sea level.
>>>
>>> This number is not a prediction.
>>>
>>> But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
>>> long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
>>> especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
>>>
>>> a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>> but likely.
>>>
>>> Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in
>>> sea level this century.
>>>
>>> In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
>>> expansion of ocean water.
>>>
>>> Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
>>> were minor components.
>>>
>>> But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
>>> level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
>>> Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
>>> melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
>>> entire ice cap melts).
>>>
>>> The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
>>>
>>> Seeking to correct the IPCC’s failure to come up with a comprehensive
>>> forecast for sea level increase, a number of state panels and
>>> government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
>>> include an examination of melting ice sheets.
>>>
>>> For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
>>> County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
>>> level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
>>>
>>> A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
>>> the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
>>> gates.
>>>
>>> Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
>>> in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
>>> low-lying coastal areas — including much of the U.S. east coast — is
>>> foolhardy and irresponsible.
>>>
>>> Who is at risk?
>>>
>>> Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
>>> climate during the next century.
>>>
>>> Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
>>> industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
>>> left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
>>> of the developing world.
>>>
>>> The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
>>>
>>> Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
>>> storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
>>> of environmental refugees will be created — 15 million people live at
>>> or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
>>>
>>> Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
>>> disrupted, creating political instability.
>>>
>>> The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
>>> rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
>>> Nile, and Mississippi.
>>>
>>> Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
>>> create very high rates of what is known as “local, relative sea level
>>> rise.”
>>>
>>> The rising seas will displace the vast majority of people in these
>>> delta regions.
>>>
>>> Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
>>> decimated by rising sea level — a three-foot sea level rise will
>>> eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam — causing a food
>>> crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
>>>
>>> The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
>>> the financial resources to fight land loss.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
>>> restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
>>> Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
>>> relative sea level rise expected.
>>>
>>> Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
>>> was an “ineluctable fact” that within the lifespan of some people
>>> alive today, “the vast majority of that land will be underwater.”
>>>
>>> He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
>>> for area residents and for not having the “honesty and compassion” to
>>> tell Louisiana residents the “truth”: Someday, they will have to leave
>>> the delta.
>>>
>>> The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
>>> century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
>>> future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
>>>
>>> Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
>>> because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
>>> saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
>>>
>>> In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
>>> 55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
>>> New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
>>> of the Tuvalu atolls.
>>>
>>> Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
>>>
>>> The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
>>> meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
>>> island nation.
>>>
>>> The world’s major coastal cities will undoubtedly receive most of the
>>> attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
>>> measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
>>> three-foot rise.
>>>
>>> This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
>>> as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
>>>
>>> Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
>>> Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
>>> Francisco.
>>>
>>> Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
>>> threatened major cities outside of North America.
>>>
>>> Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
>>> leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
>>>
>>> Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
>>> Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
>>> must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
>>>
>>> Twelve percent of the world’s open ocean shorelines are fronted by
>>> barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
>>> development on most of them — save for those completely surrounded by
>>> massive seawalls.
>>>
>>> Impacts in the United States, with a 3,500-mile long barrier island
>>> shoreline extending from Montauk Point on Long Island to the Mexican
>>> border, will be huge.
>>>
>>> The only way to preserve the barrier islands themselves will be to
>>> abandon them so that they may respond naturally to rising sea level.
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Harry
>>
>> Where do you find this wild alarmist garbage,
>> the idiots that write it can't possibly know that
>> ice can only melt as a function of surface area,
>> and the big ice sheets have almost all of their
>> surface at high altitude, else they would have
>> already melted.
>>
>> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
>> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
>> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
>>
>>
>
>You wouldn't need to melt all of it to raise 7 feet. Less than a third
>of the Greenland icecap would be sufficient. Plus there's even more ice
>waiting to melt in the Antarctic. As far as the timeline goes, if you
>work out the latent heat, the volume of ice and the estimated forcing,
>it's quite easy to come up with a time of 100 years for this to happen.
No it isn't, partly because of the huge amount
of energy needed, but mostly because of the
surface area problem, two ice blocks will
melt completely quicker than one.
There has always been bottom melting,
and for ice to remain, there has to be snow
to replace the bottom melted quantity.
GW originally was supposed to make
the atmosphere more humid, but now it
is claimed to make it drier in some places
and wetter in others.
I don't see atmospheric CO2 going
above 600 PPMV in 90 years, and I am
not convinced that will cause certain
temperature rise, LWIR is just too short
range in the lower troposphere.
If 2009 was nearly as warm as 2005 and
2007 supposedly were, and those years were
nearly or about the same as 1998, there is
a real plateau, too flat to be natural.
The data itself may point to the problem,
if there is a problem other than running low
on fossil fuels.
richp
WOW
Catoni
>" A number of academic studies examining recent ..."
<flush rest of opinionated leftist lies>
Reply:
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha We'll all be long dead
from old age, disease, accident or criminal assault long before that
ever happens... Not even in you great- great -great - great -grandkids
time will that happen.
But if you're really, really lucky.. and re-incarnation is a
reality, then you might be around again to see it.... thousands of
years from now.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Man needs to make sure it does, but it will
not be possible to do that by controlling gas
proportions in the atmosphere, snow and ice
need to be melted where it falls.
If a couple of degrees warmer would reduce
the effort needed to prevent the next glaciation
that would be good.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
If nothing is done, the rate will accelerate as we pump even more CO2
into the atmosphere. Your calculations are what's moot.
Siobhan Medeiros
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 10:50 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >> 7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> >> estimate.
>
> > = 13 inches per century, it would take 646.85
> > years to reach 7 feet. Since in fact there is no
> > measureable 'sea level' rise, the whole issue is
> > moot.
>
> However, if you cook the data, you can make a case for anything, and the
> cool-aid drinkers will fall for it every time.
>
> Liberal slogan: "Cool-Aid Cool-Aid, tastes great, Cool-Aid Cool-Aid,
> can't wait".
>
> Barack Hussein Obama...mmm mmm mmm
> Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...mmm mmm mmm
>
> Simple-minded lying dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
> liberals...morons electing morons.
Rightards are the ones drinking the Kool-Aid. The last time we put
one of them in office, he destroyed the world economy and killed
100,000 people for no good reason. And the rightards would put him
back in a second.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:50:40 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>
> >7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> >estimate.
> >Sea level rise is the last effect of anthropogenic global warming
> >we'll
> >see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
>
> What other effects, sprained wrists from
> hand wringing?
Try drought, asshole. Massive food shortage sound good to you?
Siobhan Medeiros
Yeah, right. Where do you think icebergs come from, idiot? As the
temperature goes up, so does the snowline.
> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian
glaciers. Learn some science, idiot.
Siobhan Medeiros
It would take at least 10,000 years for another ice age to start, and
even then the change would be gradual enough that we could easily
adapt. In other words, a news ice age is NOT the problem at the
moment. Global warming IS.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:42:12 -0800 (PST), Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>>Ha, ha, ha, before then, we will be into another glacial period with
>>cities flattened by great sheets of ice. Does anyone really think that
>>this interglacial period will last forever ?
Ø The interglacial period is finished.
> Man needs to make sure it does, but it will
> not be possible to do that by controlling gas
> proportions in the atmosphere, snow and ice
> need to be melted where it falls.
> If a couple of degrees warmer would reduce
> the effort needed to prevent the next glaciation
> that would be good.
Ø Nothing will slow the next glaciation.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
leona...@gmail.com
Ø Not to worry. It is not going to happen, ever!!
leona...@gmail.com
Ø If nothing is done the seas will probably drop
1 or 2 mm. As for the CO2, we need all we
can get. Manmade CO2 = 3.5% - no factor.
Ø ROTFLMAO At the ugly queen of Victoria BC,
once again demonstrates her ignorance
leona...@gmail.com
Ø The Queen of Ugly in Victoria BC needs to
lose a lot of weight so she is praying for a food
shortage. It's cheaper than weight watchers.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, I M @ good guy said:
...snip
> >> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
> >>
> >> 14 Jan 2010
> >>
> >> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
...............snip
> >> Harry
> >Seven Feet???
> >Man you can kiss most of Florida and big chunks of four other southern
> >states goodbye!
> And what is Yale, a law school, or has alarmist
> journalism become the latest rage for a major?
Yale is a law school?
You must be Republickin.
- Political Economics:
- "Fascism should more properly be called
- corporatism, since it is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
- Republicans: think the very rich are the backbone of America.
- Democrats: think the middle class are the backbone of America.
- Republicans: fear government but trust corporations.
- Democrats: fear both.
- "Fascism...is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini
So? How might that merger happen in America?
Well in this case, what's the difference between merger
and government's deregulation of corporations?
Not much that I can see. Voila!
Corporations are now super people protected by the Constitution.
But it hasn't always been that way.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law.
To their everlasting glory, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
For 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, various governmental entities led corporations around on leashes, like obedient puppies, canceling their charters promptly if they compromised the public good in any way.
The leashes broke in 1886, the puppies got away, and the public good was increasingly compromised until it was finally displaced altogether.
Today, the First Amendment protects the right of corporations-as-persons to finance political campaigns and to employ lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations.
Democracy has been transformed into a crypto-plutocracy, and public policy is no longer crafted to serve the American people at large. It is shaped instead to maintain, protect, enhance or create opportunities for corporate profit.
Isn't that the root of the rot?
more info:
End Corporate "Personhood"
The Supreme Court's ruling is set to either expand the doctrines
of corporate personhood and corporate rights by expanding the ...
www.change.org/ideas/view/end_corporate_personhood
Corporate Personhood
Unequal Protection may prove to be the most significant issue in the history of corporate personhood, a doctrine which dates to 1886. ...
www.commondreams.org/views02/1226-04.htm
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sat, 16 Jan, leona...@gmail.com
said about:
Re: How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
> On Jan 16, 10:50=A0am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > 7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> > estimate.
>
> =F8 At the current IPCC current rate of 3.3 mm pa
> =3D 13 inches per century, it would take 646.85
> years to reach 7 feet. Since in fact there is no
> measureable 'sea level' rise, the whole issue is
> moot.
You must be a Republickin!
Current sea level rise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the current and future rise in sea
level associated with global warming. For sea level changes in
Earth's history, see Sea level - changes through geologic time.
Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per
year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates
estimated near 2.8 � 0.4[3] to 3.1 � 0.7[4] mm per year
(1993-2003).
Current sea level rise is due significantly to global
warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century
and longer periods.[6][7]
Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal
expansion of water and through the addition of water to the
oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets.
Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the
primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the
primary contributor over the course of the next century.
Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important,[8]
and are more difficult to predict and quantify.[8]
Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this
century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value
of 480 mm....
...................snip - end quotes
Silly Wepublickin!
Bret Cahill
> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> but likely.
>
>
I M @ good guy
Where, North Korea, potty mouth?
Have you forgotten the graft in the UN
in the pre-2003 Iraqi oil for whatever program?
Maybe you can get a more moderate
opinion from a person outside the US, the
food markets here seem well stocked.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, VFW said about:
Re: How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
> In article <8ql3l5tkjq9aaqld3...@4ax.com>,
> Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
> > suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> > but likely.
> >
> >
> > http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
> >
..................snip
> > Harry
>
> This causes me to remember the folks in the Bayous of Louisiana . They
> built everything on floats as the yearly flooding was something that you
> couldn't reason with. yes, even the chicken coops floated. Travel was by
> boat. Ahead of the times?
> These people didn't welcome news reporters. actually nobody from the
> "system"
> good luck all.
> --
> Hint; Enjoy the moment !
How about here?
photo:
http://images.askmen.com/top_10/travel/top-10-floating-hotels_10.jpg
www.askmen.com/top_10/travel/top-10-floating-hotels_10.html
or here: photo:
http://images.askmen.com/top_10/travel/top-10-floating-hotels_9.jpg
No.8 - Bora Bora Lagoon Resort & Spa
Bora Bora, French Polynesia
Dubbed "the ultimate honeymoon retreat," things don�t get much
more idyllic than the awe-inspiring Lagoon Resort & Spa on Bora
Bora. Photo:
http://images.askmen.com/top_10/travel/top-10-floating-hotels_8.jpg
No.4 - Aerohotel
Can be built anywhere
With global warming threatening population displacement, the
allure of waterborne hotels is ever increasing and nobody knows
this better than forward-thinking visionaries like Russian
architect Alexander Asadov. His solution to the problem is the
floating Aerohotel, a spaceship-like hotel concept that is held
above the water via an elegant system of supports. By building
the hotel above the water rather than on it, the design preserves
the environment beneath it and saves the need for any damaging
man-made islands to be built. Features of the hotel include
hanging gardens, cafes and restaurants, as well as a nifty
landing strip for a Zeppelin.
http://images.askmen.com/top_10/travel/top-10-floating-hotels_4.jpg
Travel Picks: Top 10 floating hotels | Reuters
Feb 20, 2009 ... Floating hotels have become a trend in recent
years, ... Guests reach the secluded floating hotel via a
15-minute boat ride from the capital ...
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51J23120090220 - Cached
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, FOX HATE COVERAGE said about:
> If you really believe that the oceans will rise and you have to do
> something, what makes more reasonable sense? To adapt to the possible
> rising waters by creative engineering at a reasonable cost or to
> attempt to control nature in order to prevent it from happening at
> all?
>
> A lot of people these days are chosing the latter. Humanity truly has
> gone insane.
Huh!? "attempt to control nature????"
Are you nuts!?
Do you know what the "A" stands for in AGW?
# Anthropogenic global warming
Tom P
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:27:48 -0600, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>>> but likely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>>>>
>>>> 14 Jan 2010
>>>>
>>>> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>>>>
>>>> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
>>>> But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
>>>> inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
>>>> sheets melt.
>>>>
>>>> by rob young and orrin pilkey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>>>> are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
>>>> global warming on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
>>>> was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
>>>> report, issued in 2007.
>>>>
>>>> Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
>>>> Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
>>>> in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
>>>> masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
>>>> most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
>>>>
>>>> Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
>>>> construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
>>>> be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
>>>> expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
>>>> poles.
>>>>
>>>> rise this century � and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
>>>> report that factored in some melting of Greenland�s ice sheet.
>>>>
>>>> academic community as a critical flaw in the report � have caused
>>>> confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
>>>> created fodder for global warming skeptics.
>>>>
>>>> But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
>>>> rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
>>>> years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
>>>> Antarctic ice sheets.
>>>>
>>>> Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
>>>> will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
>>>>
>>>> level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
>>>> governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
>>>> seven-foot rise in sea level.
>>>>
>>>> This number is not a prediction.
>>>>
>>>> But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
>>>> long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
>>>> especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
>>>>
>>>> a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>>> but likely.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in
>>>> sea level this century.
>>>>
>>>> In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
>>>> expansion of ocean water.
>>>>
>>>> Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
>>>> were minor components.
>>>>
>>>> But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
>>>> level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
>>>> Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
>>>> melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
>>>> entire ice cap melts).
>>>>
>>>> The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
>>>>
>>>> government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
>>>> include an examination of melting ice sheets.
>>>>
>>>> For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
>>>> County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
>>>> level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
>>>>
>>>> A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
>>>> the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
>>>> gates.
>>>>
>>>> Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
>>>> in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
>>>> foolhardy and irresponsible.
>>>>
>>>> Who is at risk?
>>>>
>>>> Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
>>>> climate during the next century.
>>>>
>>>> Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
>>>> industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
>>>> left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
>>>> of the developing world.
>>>>
>>>> The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
>>>>
>>>> Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
>>>> storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
>>>> or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
>>>>
>>>> Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
>>>> disrupted, creating political instability.
>>>>
>>>> The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
>>>> rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
>>>> Nile, and Mississippi.
>>>>
>>>> Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
>>>> rise.�
>>>>
>>>> delta regions.
>>>>
>>>> Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
>>>> eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam � causing a food
>>>> crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
>>>>
>>>> The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
>>>> the financial resources to fight land loss.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
>>>> restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
>>>> Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
>>>> relative sea level rise expected.
>>>>
>>>> Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
>>>> alive today, �the vast majority of that land will be underwater.�
>>>> He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
>>>> tell Louisiana residents the �truth�: Someday, they will have to leave
>>>> the delta.
>>>>
>>>> The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
>>>> century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
>>>> future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
>>>>
>>>> Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
>>>> because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
>>>> saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
>>>>
>>>> In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
>>>> 55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
>>>> New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
>>>> of the Tuvalu atolls.
>>>>
>>>> Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
>>>>
>>>> The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
>>>> meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
>>>> island nation.
>>>>
>>>> attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
>>>> measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
>>>> three-foot rise.
>>>>
>>>> This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
>>>> as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
>>>>
>>>> Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
>>>> Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
>>>> Francisco.
>>>>
>>>> Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
>>>> threatened major cities outside of North America.
>>>>
>>>> Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
>>>> leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
>>>> Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
>>>> must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
>>>>
>>>> barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
mrbawana2u
>
> > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:50:40 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>
> > <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > >7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> > >estimate.
> > >Sea level rise is the last effect of anthropogenic global warming
> > >we'll
> > >see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
>
> > What other effects, sprained wrists from
> > hand wringing?
>
fixed, fucktard.
I M @ good guy
Not all, some icebergs are the result of
so much snow the weight of the ice causes the
ice stream to flow faster, there doesn't have
to be thermal melting, it may only be temporary
pressure melting on the bottom and where stresses
exert more pressure than the ice can stand.
Discharge of icebergs continues without
any warming or above freezing temperatures,
read the following and see;
http://www.cpom.org/research/jlb-grl-32.pdf
>> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
>> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
>> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
>
>There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
>seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian
>glaciers. Learn some science, idiot.
Sure, ego maniac, there is enough ice on Earth
to raise sea level another 300 feet, but it will probably
not all melt until the sun expands enough, and that
is not supposed to happen for millions of years.
I M @ good guy
>I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:27:48 -0600, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
>>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>>>> but likely.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Jan 2010
>>>>>
>>>>> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>>>>>
>>>>> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
>>>>> should assume that the world’s oceans will rise by at least two meters
>>>>> — roughly seven feet — this century.
>>>>>
>>>>> But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
>>>>> inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
>>>>> sheets melt.
>>>>>
>>>>> by rob young and orrin pilkey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>>>>> are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
>>>>> global warming on the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
>>>>> was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
>>>>> report, issued in 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
>>>>> Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
>>>>> in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
>>>>> masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
>>>>> most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
>>>>> construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
>>>>> be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
>>>>> expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
>>>>> poles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its results were predictably conservative — a maximum of a two-foot
>>>>> rise this century — and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
>>>>> report that factored in some melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IPCC’s 2007 sea level calculations — widely recognized by the
>>>>> academic community as a critical flaw in the report — have caused
>>>>> confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
>>>>> created fodder for global warming skeptics.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
>>>>> rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
>>>>> years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
>>>>> Antarctic ice sheets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
>>>>> will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
>>>>>
>>>>> The message for the world’s leaders and decision makers is that sea
>>>>> level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
>>>>> governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
>>>>> seven-foot rise in sea level.
>>>>>
>>>>> This number is not a prediction.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
>>>>> long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
>>>>> especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
>>>>>
>>>>> a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>>>> but likely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in
>>>>> sea level this century.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
>>>>> expansion of ocean water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
>>>>> were minor components.
>>>>>
>>>>> But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
>>>>> level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
>>>>> Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
>>>>> melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
>>>>> entire ice cap melts).
>>>>>
>>>>> The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seeking to correct the IPCC’s failure to come up with a comprehensive
>>>>> forecast for sea level increase, a number of state panels and
>>>>> government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
>>>>> include an examination of melting ice sheets.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
>>>>> County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
>>>>> level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
>>>>>
>>>>> A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
>>>>> the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
>>>>> gates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
>>>>> in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
>>>>> low-lying coastal areas — including much of the U.S. east coast — is
>>>>> foolhardy and irresponsible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is at risk?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
>>>>> climate during the next century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
>>>>> industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
>>>>> left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
>>>>> of the developing world.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
>>>>> storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
>>>>> of environmental refugees will be created — 15 million people live at
>>>>> or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
>>>>> disrupted, creating political instability.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
>>>>> rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
>>>>> Nile, and Mississippi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
>>>>> create very high rates of what is known as “local, relative sea level
>>>>> rise.”
>>>>>
>>>>> The rising seas will displace the vast majority of people in these
>>>>> delta regions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
>>>>> decimated by rising sea level — a three-foot sea level rise will
>>>>> eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam — causing a food
>>>>> crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
>>>>> the financial resources to fight land loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
>>>>> restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
>>>>> Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
>>>>> relative sea level rise expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
>>>>> was an “ineluctable fact” that within the lifespan of some people
>>>>> alive today, “the vast majority of that land will be underwater.”
>>>>>
>>>>> He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
>>>>> for area residents and for not having the “honesty and compassion” to
>>>>> tell Louisiana residents the “truth”: Someday, they will have to leave
>>>>> the delta.
>>>>>
>>>>> The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
>>>>> century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
>>>>> future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
>>>>> because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
>>>>> saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
>>>>> 55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
>>>>> New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
>>>>> of the Tuvalu atolls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
>>>>>
>>>>> The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
>>>>> meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
>>>>> island nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The world’s major coastal cities will undoubtedly receive most of the
>>>>> attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
>>>>> measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
>>>>> three-foot rise.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
>>>>> as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
>>>>> Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
>>>>> Francisco.
>>>>>
>>>>> Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
>>>>> threatened major cities outside of North America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
>>>>> leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
>>>>> Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
>>>>> must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Twelve percent of the world’s open ocean shorelines are fronted by
>>>>> barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
>>>>> development on most of them — save for those completely surrounded by
Oh, yes, trying to figure out how much
0.24 mm per year is for 40 years is really tough.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, I M @ good guy said about:
Re: How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>
> Do you really think the people preaching
> reduction of fossil fuel use are setting an example?
>
> Like the environmentalist that owns a 707?
I'm pretty sure you don't care that you are
using a formal logical fallacy.
If so, then
shut the fuck up, you lying sack of
typical conservative vulture vomit.
# Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a
formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument
which renders the argument ...
Material fallacies - Verbal fallacies - Deductive fallacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy - Cached - Similar
# Category:Logical fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pages in category "Logical fallacies". The following 77 pages are
in this category, out of 77 total. This list may not reflect
recent changes (learn more). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies - Cached -
#
Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning.
.. Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical
fallacy, the question remains as ...
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) - Force - Poverty - Pity
www.logicalfallacies.info/ -
** A wise man once said about rhetorical tricks:
** "One is generally either aware
** of them or duped by them."
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/logic01.html logic faq
Logic and fallacy faq, propaganda-proofing.
"You can be helpless and hopeless if you want,
but it's worth noting that this is an option,
not a requirement" --Noam Chomsky
------------------------------------------------
"It is a tribute to the American people that our
leaders perceived that they had to lie to us. It
is not a tribute to us that we were so easily
misled."
-Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
------------------------------------------------
Sirius
>> Where do you find this wild alarmist garbage,
>> the idiots that write it can't possibly know that ice can only melt as
>> a function of surface area, and the big ice sheets have almost all of
>> their surface at high altitude, else they would have already melted.
>
> Yeah, right. Where do you think icebergs come from, idiot? As the
> temperature goes up, so does the snowline.
>
>> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
>> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not going to melt in the
>> next 10,000 years.
>
> There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
> seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian glaciers.
> Learn some science, idiot.
How can you pretend that the article referenced by the OP is scientific ?
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
Basically it says, we are sure that enough greenland ice will melt to
raise oceans by 2m. All the scientifically based predictions are false.
But the article forgets to explain why they suppose such a thing.
And they forget to say that, if the IPCC didn't include it in its
alarmist previsions, it was because it is so completely irrationnal that
it would have not even an apparence of credibility.
Catoni
> - "Fascism should more properly be called
> - corporatism, since it is the merger
> - of state and corporate power."
> -- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism. "
I wouldn't necessarily believe either a fascist dictator or a
communist dictator. In both systems.... the government has control of
everything and everyone in society....
>"- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
>- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people. "
Democratic socialism has the same end goal as communism
fascism... just using more peaceful and gradual means. "Patient
Gradualism" is what it is called by the British socialist Fabian
Society
Socialism: when it has attained its final goal.....owns and
controls both the people and the tools and means of production.
Fascism: Allows people to "Own" the company... but tells the owners
what to produce, how much of it to produce, and how much to pay the
workers etc. Only on paper is the company "privately" owned...in
anything that matters... the government is the real controler....
little different from communism in the end.,
To the man or woman on the street... it makes little
difference...communism.... fascism.... both totalitarian.... both
enemies of freedom.
Quote: Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal
sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill
Republicans.... Democrats..... in the U.S. it doesn't really matter
anymore which is in power.... people behind the scenes control
both....
Where government fear and respect the people.. you have freedom.
Where the people fear the government.... you have Tyranny and loss
of freedom.
Catoni
leona...@gmail.com
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
< a bunch of nonsense>
•• Dougie Bashful has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all
–– ––
Political correctness is destroying Europe.
America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.
leona...@gmail.com
< a bunch of junk>
•• Dougie Bashful has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all
–– ––
Political correctness is destroying Europe.
America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
now Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.
Sirius
> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> but likely.
>
>
> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>
> 14 Jan 2010
>
> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
14 Jan 2010: Opinion : How High Will Seas Rise?
Get Ready for Seven Feet
Harry, the melting of the Greenland ice cap is as probable as the
discovery that there were actually WMD in Iraq.
Be ready for it, because it slowly but irrevocably will be verified.
Roving rabbit
But in this case, everyone can go to Greenland and look at it without
weapon inspectors,
Q
--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.
Sirius
You do not have to go that far.
You just look here, and see that Greenland icecap is on the rise.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
>
> Q
Orval Fairbairn
pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, I M @ good guy said about:
> Re: How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>
>
> >
> > Do you really think the people preaching
> > reduction of fossil fuel use are setting an example?
> >
> > Like the environmentalist that owns a 707?
.... or all of the government types attending an "environmental"
conference in Copenhagen, flying there in their jets (including Obama)?
Hypocrites all!!
(snip)
>
>
> - Political Economics:
>
> - "Fascism should more properly be called
> - corporatism, since it is the merger
> - of state and corporate power."
> -- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
>
> - Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
> - Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
CORRECTION: Both Socialism and Fascism claim that the government owns
both the people and the fruits of their productive effort. They are both
an extension of feudalism, in which the serfs are slaves to the Lords.
In Socialism it is the bureaucrats who are the new Lords.
>
> - Republicans: think the very rich are the backbone of America.
> - Democrats: think the middle class are the backbone of America.
>
CORRECTION: Republicans think that people are entitled to the fruits of
their labors; Democrats think that the government owns those fruits of
people's labors.
> - Republicans: fear government but trust corporations.
> - Democrats: fear both.
CORRECTION: Republicans and Libertarians fear ANY extension of either
corporate or State power. It is the Democrats who wish to extend the
power of the State.
> - "Fascism...is the merger
> - of state and corporate power."
> -- - Benito Mussolini
All you have to do is examine the "Stimulus" bill and the "health care"
bills to see how those powers get merged. Include Big Labor in the mix,
too.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Catoni
>"CORRECTION: Republicans and Libertarians fear ANY extension of either
>corporate or State power. It is the Democrats who wish to extend the
>power of the State."
Reply:
CORRECTION: It may have been that way in the
past, but these days there is little difference between them when in
power. Even under the Republicans, government continues to grow.
Democrats.... Republicans..... the same crap happens...they are
both going down the same road... the Democrats just going down the
road a little quicker...
There are those behind the scenes that are pulling the strings on
both puppets..and most of the people think that that there is really a
difference... LOL.
If they really wanted a change, a change that actually supported
the Constitution.. they would have supported Ron Paul and the
Libertarians
Sirius
> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> but likely.
>
>
> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>
> 14 Jan 2010
>
> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>
> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
> should assume that the world’s oceans will rise by at least two meters
—
> roughly seven feet — this century.
Excuse me, no time to verify, but it seems, that UK MET office suggested
that the 1.9m (6 feet 2") by 2100 sea rise estimates were grossly
overestimated.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
Quote :
"Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the
organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with
another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus
over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where
British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from
accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the *Met Office*
*criticised* suggestions that *sea levels* were likely to rise *1.9m* by 2100,
suggesting much lower increases were likely."
Harry, are you sure you still want to go on with the AGW guys ?
really sure ?
I M @ good guy
>On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0500, Harry Hope wrote :
>
>> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>> but likely.
>>
>>
>> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>>
>> 14 Jan 2010
>>
>> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>>
>> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
>> should assume that the world?s oceans will rise by at least two meters
> ?
>> roughly seven feet ? this century.
>
>Excuse me, no time to verify, but it seems, that UK MET office suggested
>that the 1.9m (6 feet 2") by 2100 sea rise estimates were grossly
>overestimated.
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
>
>Quote :
>"Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the
>organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with
>another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
>
>The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus
>over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where
>British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from
>accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the *Met Office*
>*criticised* suggestions that *sea levels* were likely to rise *1.9m* by 2100,
>suggesting much lower increases were likely."
>
>Harry, are you sure you still want to go on with the AGW guys ?
>really sure ?
If there was any indication sea level rise was
occurring that would likely amount to the insane
1.9 meters by 2100, a lot of places need to start
making plans to move or get pontoons under the
house.
The rational objection to any future telling
is that individuals are entitled to do as they please
with their money and property as long as it does
not place others in harms way or cause others
to lose assets, and even in the face of penalty
of law, some individuals will exercise that trait.
Apparently it has been a long time since
sea level rose that fast, how many cubic miles
of ice would have to melt?
VFW
<beabd91e-07f7-4ab2...@p16g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Catoni <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> There are those behind the scenes that are pulling the strings on
> both puppets..and most of the people think that that there is really a
> difference... LOL.
>
> If they really wanted a change, a change that actually supported
> the Constitution.. they would have supported Ron Paul and the
> Libertarians
yep. and you don't post in the NG
alt.politics.libertarian
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:33:40 -0800, Siobhan Medeiros wrote :
>
> >> Where do you find this wild alarmist garbage,
> >> the idiots that write it can't possibly know that ice can only melt as
> >> a function of surface area, and the big ice sheets have almost all of
> >> their surface at high altitude, else they would have already melted.
>
> > Yeah, right. Where do you think icebergs come from, idiot? As the
> > temperature goes up, so does the snowline.
>
> >> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
> >> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not going to melt in the
> >> next 10,000 years.
>
> > There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
> > seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian glaciers.
> > Learn some science, idiot.
>
> How can you pretend that the article referenced by the OP is scientific ?
Duhhhh....cause Yale is a respected university?
>
> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
> Basically it says, we are sure that enough greenland ice will melt to
> raise oceans by 2m. All the scientifically based predictions are false.
> But the article forgets to explain why they suppose such a thing.
> And they forget to say that, if the IPCC didn't include it in its
> alarmist previsions, it was because it is so completely irrationnal that
> it would have not even an apparence of credibility.
This prediction is just one of several. Maybe they're right, maybe
they're wrong. But it should not be ignored.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:33:40 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
We're not talking about 300feet are we, moron? We're talking about
seven.
Cat_in_awe
> On Jan 16, 7:50 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> 7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
>> estimate.
>> Sea level rise is the last effect of anthropogenic global warming
>> we'll
>> see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
>
> Stuff like the tornado alley extending to the east cost and record
> droughts in the southeast (like in Georgia) and out west.
>
> What's that? It already happened?
No, it's completely over. Keep up, dummy.
Tom P
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:57:19 -0600, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:27:48 -0600, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>>>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>>>>> but likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2230
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 14 Jan 2010
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they
>>>>>> But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
>>>>>> inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
>>>>>> sheets melt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> by rob young and orrin pilkey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>>>>>> are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
>>>>>> global warming on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
>>>>>> was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
>>>>>> report, issued in 2007.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
>>>>>> Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
>>>>>> in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
>>>>>> masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
>>>>>> most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
>>>>>> construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
>>>>>> be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
>>>>>> expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
>>>>>> poles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rise this century � and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
>>>>>> report that factored in some melting of Greenland�s ice sheet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> academic community as a critical flaw in the report � have caused
>>>>>> confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
>>>>>> created fodder for global warming skeptics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
>>>>>> rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
>>>>>> years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
>>>>>> Antarctic ice sheets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
>>>>>> will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
>>>>>> governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
>>>>>> seven-foot rise in sea level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This number is not a prediction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
>>>>>> long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
>>>>>> especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
>>>>>> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
>>>>>> but likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in
>>>>>> sea level this century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
>>>>>> expansion of ocean water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
>>>>>> were minor components.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
>>>>>> level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
>>>>>> Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
>>>>>> melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
>>>>>> entire ice cap melts).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
>>>>>> include an examination of melting ice sheets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
>>>>>> County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
>>>>>> level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
>>>>>> the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
>>>>>> gates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
>>>>>> in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
>>>>>> foolhardy and irresponsible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is at risk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
>>>>>> climate during the next century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
>>>>>> industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
>>>>>> left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
>>>>>> of the developing world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
>>>>>> storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
>>>>>> or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
>>>>>> disrupted, creating political instability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
>>>>>> rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
>>>>>> Nile, and Mississippi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
>>>>>> rise.�
>>>>>>
>>>>>> delta regions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
>>>>>> eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam � causing a food
>>>>>> crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
>>>>>> the financial resources to fight land loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
>>>>>> restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
>>>>>> Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
>>>>>> relative sea level rise expected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
>>>>>> alive today, �the vast majority of that land will be underwater.�
>>>>>> He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
>>>>>> tell Louisiana residents the �truth�: Someday, they will have to leave
>>>>>> the delta.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
>>>>>> century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
>>>>>> future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
>>>>>> because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
>>>>>> saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
>>>>>> 55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
>>>>>> New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
>>>>>> of the Tuvalu atolls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
>>>>>> meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
>>>>>> island nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
>>>>>> measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
>>>>>> three-foot rise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
>>>>>> as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
>>>>>> Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
>>>>>> Francisco.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
>>>>>> threatened major cities outside of North America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
>>>>>> leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
>>>>>> Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
>>>>>> must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
challenge for you.
leona...@gmail.com
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sat, 16 Jan, leonard7...@gmail.com
> said about:
> Re: How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
>
> > On Jan 16, 10:50=A0am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > > 7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> > > estimate.
>
> > =3D 13 inches per century, it would take 646.85
> > years to reach 7 feet. Since in fact there is no
> > measureable 'sea level' rise, the whole issue is
> > moot.
•• Dougie Bashful has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all
–– ––
Political correctness is destroying Europe.
America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
leona...@gmail.com
> Apparently it has been a long time since
> sea level rose that fast, how many cubic miles
> of ice would have to melt?
ø It is not happening
It will not happen in this millenium
It is unlikely to happen before
100,000 years have passed
JohnM
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:33:40 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> >On Jan 16, 12:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
> >> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
> >> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
>
> >There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
> >seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian
> >glaciers. Learn some science, idiot.
>
> Sure, ego maniac, there is enough ice on Earth
> to raise sea level another 300 feet,
This is 5 to 10 times higher than any estimates I have seen. Do you
have a citation?
I M @ good guy
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 6:12 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:33:40 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>>
>> <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 12:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
>> >> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
>> >> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
>>
>> >There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
>> >seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian
>> >glaciers. Learn some science, idiot.
>>
>> Sure, ego maniac, there is enough ice on Earth
>> to raise sea level another 300 feet,
>
>This is 5 to 10 times higher than any estimates I have seen. Do you
>have a citation?
Sure;
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
which seems to under-estimate the Asian glaciers.
Add in the land rebound resulting from long
term warmer temperatures, and it could easily add
a few meters more.
JohnM
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:21:02 -0800 (PST), JohnM
>
>
>
> <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 6:12 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:33:40 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> >> <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 16, 12:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >> Sure, if all the ice on Greenland melted,
> >> >> it would raise sea level, but all of it is not
> >> >> going to melt in the next 10,000 years.
>
> >> >There's more than enough ice to raise the sea level by the required
> >> >seven feet in the Greenland, Antarctic, Siberian and Canadian
> >> >glaciers. Learn some science, idiot.
>
> >> Sure, ego maniac, there is enough ice on Earth
> >> to raise sea level another 300 feet,
>
> >This is 5 to 10 times higher than any estimates I have seen. Do you
> >have a citation?
>
> Sure;
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Thanks. I see the discrepancy results from an assumption that E.
Antarctica is unlikely to melt given current predictions for
temperature rise. The total from the link you gave is 261 feet but a
large proportion of that is E. Antarctica.
> which seems to under-estimate the Asian glaciers.
Even so they are hardly likely to add an additional 40 feet
I M @ good guy
What did you use for the conversion, 39 or 40 inches?
There could be more than 500,000 cubic kilometers
or miles in Asia, I think they mentioned 180,000.
It would take a lot of warming to melt all of
Antarctica, I said 10,000 years for Greenland, worst
case with no seismic or asteroid events, and at
least 50,000 for all of Antarctica.
But most fossil fuel will run out before either
of those, and there may be considerable question
if there is real warming, GW or AGW, and whether
or not it will continue, the same or increasing,
and there may be less of a problem with AGW
due to atmospheric CO2 concentrations than
even the lowest estimates.
That is why I would suggest spending all
available money, and then some, on alternate
energy, especially electric vehicle technology
and batteries.
The US is in a position to do a lot, and I
think the situation warrants a national
emergency declaration giving the President
authority to use emoney to get things going,
congress is too polarized and old fashioned
to get anything appropriate and rational
done.
Europe is screwed as far as individual
countries go, they need to get permission
from the EC to use TP.
China and Russia would not get into
that fix, and I hope the US will not, we
need to implement innovative funding
to get things done, the social programs
have progressed too far without proper
funding and it will soon cause problems,
better to get the economy and alternate
energy going with unconventional action
rather than have far worse things happen.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:24 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:50:40 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>
> > > <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > > >7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> > > >estimate.
> > > >we'll
> > > >see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
>
> > > hand wringing?
>
> > Try drought, asshole. Massive food shortage sound good to you?
>
> Ø The Queen of Ugly in Victoria BC needs to
> lose a lot of weight so she is praying for a food
> shortage. It's cheaper than weight watchers.
>
Wrong body type, wrong city. Try again, loser.
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural phenomena
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:24:50 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>
> <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:50:40 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>
> >> <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >> >7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
> >> >estimate.
> >> >Sea level rise is the last effect of anthropogenic global warming
> >> >we'll
> >> >see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
>
> >> What other effects, sprained wrists from
> >> hand wringing?
>
> >Try drought, asshole. Massive food shortage sound good to you?
>
Try the good 'ol U S of A moron. And pretty much everywhere else.
>
> Have you forgotten the graft in the UN
> in the pre-2003 Iraqi oil for whatever program?
>
Haven't forgotten it, just trying to figure out what the fuck it has
to do with what we're talking about.
> Maybe you can get a more moderate
> opinion from a person outside the US, the
> food markets here seem well stocked.
I'm sorry, did you miss the huge spike in food prices a couple of
years ago?
Idiot.
bvallely
> A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
> suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> but likely.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
From The Times
January 21, 2010
UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning
The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology
over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to
disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday
that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly
substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting
the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of
evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,”
the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC
regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”
The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel,
already under fire over a separate scandal involving hacked e-mails
last year.
The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that
the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035
and perhaps sooner is very high”. It caused shock in Asia, where about
two billion people depend on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers for
their fresh water supplies during the dry seasons.
It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus
among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single
Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now
told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his
interview with the New Scientist magazine.
“I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but
I did say they were shrinking fast,” he said. “I have never written
2035 in any of my research papers or reports.” Professor Hasnain works
for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is
headed by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the climate change panel.
Dr Pachauri has defended the panel’s work, while trying to distance
himself from Professor Hasnain by saying that the latter was not
working at the institute in 1999: “We slipped up on one number, I
don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific
evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this Earth.”
Professor Hasnain confirmed that he had given an interview to Fred
Pearce, of New Scientist, when he was still working for Jawaharlal
Nehru University in 1999. “I said that small glaciers in the eastern
and central Himalaya are declining at an alarming rate and in the next
40-50 years they may lose substantial mass,” he said. “That means they
will shrink in area and mass. To which the journalist has assigned a
date and reported it in his own way.” Mr Pearce was not immediately
available for comment.
Despite the controversy, the IPCC said that it stood by its overall
conclusions about glacier loss this century in big mountain ranges
including the Himalayas. “This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and
entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC
assessment,” it said.
The scandal threatens to undermine the panel’s credibility as it
begins the marathon process of drafting its Fifth Assessment Reports,
which are due out in 2013-14. Georg Kaser, a leading Austrian
glaciologist who contributed to the 2007 report, described the glacier
mistake as huge and said that he had warned colleagues about it months
before publication.
The error is also now being exploited by climate sceptics, many of
whom are convinced that stolen e-mail exchanges last year revealed a
conspiracy to exaggerate the evidence supporting global warming.
Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment Minister, said on Tuesday the
scandal vindicated his position that there was no proof that Himalayan
glaciers were melting abnormally fast. “The IPCC claim that glaciers
will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence,”
he said.
Monitoring Himalayan glaciers is extremely difficult because most of
them lie in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the word at an
altitude of more than 5,000 metres (16,000ft).
Most studies until now have therefore been based necessarily on a
mixture of outdated and incomplete data, satellite imagery,
photography, and anecdotal evidence.
Last year, however, TERI launched a project to install high-tech
sensors on three glaciers which it will use as benchmarks to assess
the situation across the Himalayas.
Professor Hasnain, who is running the project, said that he would soon
be presenting a report on the status of Himalayan glaciers, based on
research works by Indian and international scientists published in
different peer reviewed journals across the world.
He hopes that these studies will help to produce more incontrovertible
evidence that the Himalayan glaciers are under threat. In the short
term, however, it seems they will do little to convince climate change
sceptics, or to repair the image of the IPCC.
duke
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
>
> From The Times
> January 21, 2010
> UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning
>
More proof that science is lies. A leftwing plot to undermine supreme
conservative ideology.
Those left wing bastards think that they're smarter than us! But we got the
guns, so we win again. Over educated scientists with their fancy lab coats
and big diplomas are always trying to tell us what to do.
Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table.
It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
as the basis for public policy development.
The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
from their leaders.
They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
GOP's Hispanic deficit.
Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
or lean toward the Republican Party.
But that's a full house compared with scientists.
Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean
Democratic.
We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
agenda or corporate greed.
But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
is warming the planet.
It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.
Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
practice the scientific method.
Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties ?
while the other party attempts to obstruct them.
Global warming is a prime example.
Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not
arrested.
All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.
Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
suppressing scientific concerns.
Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
gas emissions.
Their alternative is to offer nothing.
Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
not wont to do.
Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
good education, complex charts and empirical data.
They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust
science.
That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment ?
advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with substantial
majorities.
But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
resurgence could very well come.
Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
describe it.
I M @ good guy
<sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 7:48 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:24:50 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
>>
>> <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:50:40 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>>
>> >> <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> >> >7 feet of sea level rise this century is an unrealistically high
>> >> >estimate.
>> >> >Sea level rise is the last effect of anthropogenic global warming
>> >> >we'll
>> >> >see. Other effects arrive much sooner.
>>
>> >> What other effects, sprained wrists from
>> >> hand wringing?
>>
>> >Try drought, asshole. Massive food shortage sound good to you?
>>
>> Where, North Korea, potty mouth?
>
>Try the good 'ol U S of A moron. And pretty much everywhere else.
Is this supposed to be a present situation, or
a future prediction by a "climate scientist"?
>> Have you forgotten the graft in the UN
>> in the pre-2003 Iraqi oil for whatever program?
>>
>
>Haven't forgotten it, just trying to figure out what the fuck it has
>to do with what we're talking about.
I usually don't respond to potty mouthed
leftist creeps, but you seem disturbed, the biggest
problem I see is a lack of capability to distribute
food, where is all the money the UN gets going?
>> Maybe you can get a more moderate
>> opinion from a person outside the US, the
>> food markets here seem well stocked.
>
>I'm sorry, did you miss the huge spike in food prices a couple of
>years ago?
>
>Idiot.
What, was there a big drought? Did the seas
rise so much a lot of farm land was flooded, or does
rising seas cause drought, what next from the left
twisted hysterics?
There is going to be a big shortage of rice,
not because of climate or sea level rise, but
because the rice farmers are leaving the paddies
and going to work in factories and IT offices.
It wouldn't be as much of a problem if
Asia could accept potatoes and wheat as the
major staples, and if India would have less
of a taboo on eating beef.
Africa should be a food exporting place,
that should be an objective of the UN, not
alarmist publications about the weather.
Sorry the special election didn't go well.
JohnM
39 The extra 0.37 is neither here nor there. It makes it 262 ft in
fact, so an additional 38 rather than the 40 I stated for your Asian
glaciers
> There could be more than 500,000 cubic kilometers
> or miles in Asia, I think they mentioned 180,000.
>
> It would take a lot of warming to melt all of
> Antarctica, I said 10,000 years for Greenland, worst
> case with no seismic or asteroid events, and at
> least 50,000 for all of Antarctica.
What tosh. Ice sheets up to 4 km thick covering 5 times the area of
Greenland
and Antarctica together melted completely in less then 10,000 years.
Never heard of ice ages and inter-glacials?
I M @ good guy
John doesn't seem to see any difference
between the ice sheets over Canada and Europe
that melted by 10,000 years ago and ice sheets
inside the Arctic Circle and at the South Pole.
I mentioned 300 feet, the literature says
85 meters, perhaps there would be little or
no ocean expansion because melted ice
would still be about the same temperature
of the deep ocean, only a couple of degrees
above freezing.
With that much ice and the surface topography
not known precisely it may be that the exact amount
of ice is not known within 15 meters, but my number
apparently may known a better number than had
been used, even though there is little chance of
_ALL_ the ice ever melting.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Orval Fairbairn said:
> In article <tZednb0qHba_D8_W...@pghconnect.com>,
> pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> > in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, I M @ good guy said about:
> > Re: How High Will Seas Rise? Get Ready for Seven Feet
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Do you really think the people preaching
> > > reduction of fossil fuel use are setting an example?
> > >
> > > Like the environmentalist that owns a 707?
>
> .... or all of the government types attending an "environmental"
> conference in Copenhagen, flying there in their jets (including Obama)?
>
> Hypocrites all!!
Nope. Buy a dictionary. Read it.
>
> (snip)
> >
> >
> > - Political Economics:
> >
> > - "Fascism should more properly be called
> > - corporatism, since it is the merger
> > - of state and corporate power."
> > -- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
> >
> > - Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
> > - Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
>
> CORRECTION: Both Socialism and Fascism claim that the government owns
> both the people and the fruits of their productive effort.
Why do you guys just make shit up?
Do you really think your dittohead target is THAT stoopid?
They are both
> an extension of feudalism, in which the serfs are slaves to the Lords.
> In Socialism it is the bureaucrats who are the new Lords.
Stooooooooooooopid girl.
> >
> > - Republicans: think the very rich are the backbone of America.
> > - Democrats: think the middle class are the backbone of America.
> >
>
> CORRECTION: Republicans think that people are entitled to the fruits of
> their labors; Democrats think that the government owns those fruits of
> people's labors.
So you believe Limbaugh & Co. So why are you so frightened
you refuse to find out what they really think? Brain wimp.
>
>
> > - Republicans: fear government but trust corporations.
> > - Democrats: fear both.
>
> CORRECTION: Republicans and Libertarians fear ANY extension of either
> corporate or State power. It is the Democrats who wish to extend the
> power of the State.
Hogwash. They both worship at the alter of the
absolutely unregulated "Free Market." Deregulation
has been your mantra since Your Hero Reagan was forgetting
his lines.
> > - "Fascism...is the merger
> > - of state and corporate power."
> > -- - Benito Mussolini
>
> All you have to do is examine the "Stimulus" bill and the "health care"
> bills to see how those powers get merged. Include Big Labor in the mix,
> too.
Nope. But the bailout was an excellent example of
fascism...it's only questionable cuz of the crisis.
Here's a pic of fascism: http://i41.tinypic.com/2wewhs7.jpg
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
leona...@gmail.com
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all
–– ––
JIMMIE
> In article <8ql3l5tkjq9aaqld36iaou2flq2c2mr...@4ax.com>,
> Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > A number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have
> > suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> > but likely.
>
>
> > — roughly seven feet — this century.
>
> > But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the
> > inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice
> > sheets melt.
>
> > by rob young and orrin pilkey
>
> > The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> > are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of
> > global warming on the planet.
>
> > But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable
> > was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest
> > report, issued in 2007.
>
> > Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the
> > Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases
> > in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice
> > masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the
> > most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century.
>
> > Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to
> > construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could
> > be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal
> > expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the
> > poles.
>
> > rise this century — and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC
> > report that factored in some melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.
>
> > academic community as a critical flaw in the report — have caused
> > confusion among many in the general public and the media and have
> > created fodder for global warming skeptics.
>
> > But there should be no confusion about the serious threat posed by
> > rising sea levels, especially as evidence has mounted in the past two
> > years of the accelerated pace of melting of the Greenland and West
> > Antarctic ice sheets.
>
> > Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
> > will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century.
>
> > level rise is real and is only going to get worse.
>
> > Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that
> > governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a
> > seven-foot rise in sea level.
>
> > This number is not a prediction.
>
> > But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative
> > long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities,
> > especially for the siting of major infrastructure;
>
> > suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible,
> > but likely.
>
> > sea level this century.
>
> > In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal
> > expansion of ocean water.
>
> > Contributions of melting mountain glaciers and the large ice sheets
> > were minor components.
>
> > But most climate scientists now believe that the main drivers of sea
> > level rise in the 21st century will be the melting of the West
> > Antarctic Ice Sheet (a potential of a 16-foot rise if the entire sheet
> > melts) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (a potential rise of 20 feet if the
> > entire ice cap melts).
>
> > The nature of the melting is non-linear and is difficult to predict.
>
> > forecast for sea level increase, a number of state panels and
> > government committees have produced sea level rise predictions that
> > include an examination of melting ice sheets.
>
> > For example, sea level rise panels in Rhode Island and Miami-Dade
> > County have concluded that a minimum of a three- to five-foot sea
> > level rise should be anticipated by 2100.
>
> > A California report assumes a possible 4.6-foot rise by 2100, while
> > the Dutch assume a 2.5-foot rise by 2050 in the design of their tidal
> > gates.
>
> > Given the growing consensus about the major sea level rise on the way
> > in the coming century or two, the continued development of many
> > foolhardy and irresponsible.
>
> > Who is at risk?
>
> > Rising seas will be on the front lines of the battle against changing
> > climate during the next century.
>
> > Our great concern is that as the infrastructure of major cities in the
> > industrialized world becomes threatened, there will be few resources
> > left to address the dramatic impacts that will be facing the citizens
> > of the developing world.
>
> > The ramifications of a major sea level rise are massive.
>
> > Agriculture will be disrupted, water supplies will be salinized,
> > storms and flood waters will reach ever further inland, and millions
> > or below three feet elevation in Bangladesh, for example.
>
> > Governments, especially those in the developing world, will be
> > disrupted, creating political instability.
>
> > The most vulnerable of all coastal environments are deltas of major
> > rivers, including the Mekong, Irrawaddy, Niger, Ganges-Brahmaputra,
> > Nile, and Mississippi.
>
> > Here, land subsidence will combine with global sea level rise to
> > rise.”
>
> > delta regions.
>
> > Adding insult to injury, in many parts of Asia the rice crop will be
> > eliminate half of the rice production in Vietnam — causing a food
> > crisis coincident with the mass migration of people.
>
> > The Mississippi Delta is unique because it lies within a country with
> > the financial resources to fight land loss.
>
> > Nevertheless, we believe multibillion-dollar engineering and
> > restoration efforts designed to preserve communities on the
> > Mississippi Delta are doomed to failure, given the magnitude of
> > relative sea level rise expected.
>
> > Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in 2008 that it
> > alive today, “the vast majority of that land will be underwater.”
>
> > He also faulted federal officials for not developing migration plans
> > tell Louisiana residents the “truth”: Someday, they will have to leave
> > the delta.
>
> > The city of New Orleans can probably be protected into the next
> > century, but only at great expense and with little guarantee that
> > future storms like hurricane Katrina will not inundate the city again.
>
> > Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations are already being abandoned
> > because of the direct and indirect effects of sea level rise, such as
> > saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
>
> > In the Marshall Islands, some crops are being grown in abandoned
> > 55-gallon oil drums because the ground is now too salty for planting.
> > New Zealand is accepting, on a gradual basis, all of the inhabitants
> > of the Tuvalu atolls.
>
> > Inhabitants of Carteret Atoll have all moved to Papua, New Guinea.
>
> > The forward-looking government of the Maldives recently held a cabinet
> > meeting underwater to highlight the ultimate fate of their small
> > island nation.
>
> > attention as sea level rise threatens infrastructure.
>
> > Miami tops the list of most endangered cities in the world, as
> > measured by the value of property that would be threatened by a
> > three-foot rise.
>
> > This would flood all of Miami Beach and leave downtown Miami sitting
> > as an island of water, disconnected from the rest of Florida.
>
> > Other threatened U.S. cities include New York/Newark, New Orleans,
> > Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Tampa-St Petersburg, and San
> > Francisco.
>
> > Osaka/Kobe, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Nagoya are among the most
> > threatened major cities outside of North America.
>
> > Preserving coastal cities will require huge public expenditures,
> > leaving smaller coastal resort communities to fend for themselves.
>
> > Manhattan, for example, is likely to beat out Nags Head, North
> > Carolina for federal funds, a fact that recreational beach communities
> > must recognize when planning a response to sea level rise.
>
> > barrier islands, and a three-foot sea level rise will spell doom for
> > massive seawalls.
>
> > Impacts in the United States, with a 3,500-mile long barrier island
> > shoreline extending from Montauk Point on Long Island to the Mexican
> > border, will be huge.
>
> > The only way to preserve the barrier islands themselves will be to
>
> > _____________________________________________________
>
> > Harry
>
> This causes me to remember the folks in the Bayous of Louisiana . They
> built everything on floats as the yearly flooding was something that you
> couldn't reason with. yes, even the chicken coops floated. Travel was by
> boat. Ahead of the times?
> These people didn't welcome news reporters. actually nobody from the
> "system"
> good luck all.
> --
> Hint; Enjoy the moment !
I had a friend who lived in the Bayou. We were in the Air Force
together in Mississippi. I would take him to see his folks just about
every other weekend for nearly a year in Louisiana. After the paved
road ran out there was about 15 miles of dirt road left. Sometimes the
dirt road would be flooded and there would be boats tied up so we
could make it to the house. Being from swamp country in Ga this wasn't
something I was unfamiliar with but not quite to this extent.
JohnM
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:30:51 -0800 (PST), JohnM
>
>
>
Apart from there being a lot more, and being somewhat thicker in
places, ice is ice when it comes to melting it.
>
> I mentioned 300 feet, the literature says
> 85 meters, perhaps there would be little or
> no ocean expansion because melted ice
> would still be about the same temperature
> of the deep ocean, only a couple of degrees
> above freezing.
The rise due to expansion is projected from expected increases in
ocean surface temperatures. I have seen no proposal of thermal
expansion in deep ocean.
I M @ good guy
At the end of the last ice age the ice over
and south of the Great Lakes melted because
it was it slide down into a warmer climate, and
the water was apparently pooled over a large
area of Canada, causing bottom melting.
Northern Europe enjoyed what may have
been the beginning of the Gulf Stream, possibly
caused by the large flow volume of water from
the Mississippi and Ohio and Missouri watersheds,
changing the climate there, but Siberia did not
enjoy much climate change.
>> I mentioned 300 feet, the literature says
>> 85 meters, perhaps there would be little or
>> no ocean expansion because melted ice
>> would still be about the same temperature
>> of the deep ocean, only a couple of degrees
>> above freezing.
>
>The rise due to expansion is projected from expected increases in
>ocean surface temperatures. I have seen no proposal of thermal
>expansion in deep ocean.
I think it is over estimated, because the thickness
of the warmer surface is not very great.
>> With that much ice and the surface topography
>> not known precisely it may be that the exact amount
>> of ice is not known within 15 meters, but my number
>> apparently may known a better number than had
>> been used, even though there is little chance of
>> _ALL_ the ice ever melting.
The amount of ice is moot if it is not going
to melt before the next ice age, but if there is
not going to be another ice age, that is good news.
JohnM
Which it won't if the climate can be stabilised,
> but if there is
> not going to be another ice age, that is good news.
Only as long as the existing ice remains, and that will depend our
skill at geo-engineering.
I M @ good guy
Good luck with that, as if you or anybody else
knows what caused the regular ice ages.
>> but if there is
>> not going to be another ice age, that is good news.
>
>Only as long as the existing ice remains, and that will depend our
>skill at geo-engineering.
It is good news regardless, buildings get
crushed by ice, haven't you been keeping up
with the Halley Research Station, how many
times have they tried to develop buildings
that can withstand just a meter or so of snow
per year?
Only a stupid egotist would think the
climate can be changed or kept the same
by controlling the atmospheric CO2 levels,
and even if it was certain that was possible,
it can't be done until and unless alternate
energy is available to keep from freezing.
I see now why you say so many goofy
things, you think I am willing to live like
an Eskimo or freeze for the sake of some
moronic hypothesis about CO2.
Brian
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:9mjml5121hkhd7vpu...@4ax.com...
promised the third world countries to help with climate change and spend it
on alternative energy research.
I M @ good guy
Not research, geez, they have been researching since
1974, don't you think it is time to start building some
energy efficient buildings and cars and producing
carbon neutral bio-fuels?
JohnM
Why do these things if there is no danger of a climate shift, as you
have assured us many times that there isn't?
T. Keating
>take all the money we're spending on climate change research and what we
>promised the third world countries to help with climate change and spend it
>on alternative energy research.
Better yet, take all the money spent by our military defending the
Middle east, shipping lanes around the world, Iraq, Afghanistan wars,
Coal, NG, Oil, the infrastructure needed to support it.. .
And instead spend it on a upgraded nationwide smart grid, renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and a new transportation system which
minimizes fossil fuel usage.
I M @ good guy
You have to be kidding, or maybe just a
sarcastic jerk, anybody with any brains knows
oil will run out before 2100, it is important to
make it last as long as possible, and to have
enough to make plastics.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:50:14 -0600, "Brian" <b...@new.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>take all the money we're spending on climate change research and what we
>>promised the third world countries to help with climate change and spend it
>>on alternative energy research.
>
>Better yet, take all the money spent by our military defending the
>Middle east, shipping lanes around the world, Iraq, Afghanistan wars,
>Coal, NG, Oil, the infrastructure needed to support it.. .
Sounds good to me, let Europe, Africa and
Asia pay for all that, we don't need anything not
found in the Western Hemisphere.
> And instead spend it on a upgraded nationwide smart grid, renewable
>energy, energy efficiency, and a new transportation system which
>minimizes fossil fuel usage.
If all the democrats and leftists liberals
would pay their taxes, there would be money
for that.