Slashdot Mirror
2005 Will Probably be Warmest on Record
Nilmat writes "A Washington Post Article notes that 2005 will probably have the highest mean global temperature of any year since the advent of systematic temperature records. At the moment, the mean temperature is about 0.75 degrees C above the global mean from 1950 to 1990, approximately .04 degrees higher than 1998, the year of the previous record. Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record."
Seeing as how I live 30 miles North of Yellowstone, I'm not rooting for that option.
Correlation is not causation.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Like this one?
. volcanoes.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/12/alaska
With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity it scares me a little more. As an average citizen, I am trying to help by:
I only wish others would wake up and smell the coffee and be diligent too.
It's all lies, I tell you, all lies! It's a conspiracy by the atheistic climatological establishment to make us all buy small cars and turn off our lights. It's every American's God-given right to puke greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But thank God that George W. Bush, His faithful servant, is making sure that these foul secularist reports are altered, so that we can continue our God-sanctioned practice of driving large vehicles, burning fossil fuels for electricity and all those other things that a proper Christian country ought to do.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't count out a huge volcanic eruption. With all the natural disasters so far this year, a nice big poof out of a volcano would round things out nicely.
I'm sure the Republicans are behind this.
The soot, ash and other debris blocks out some of the energy from the sun.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Fine ash particulates in the atmosphere reflect solar radiation (light and heat) back into space.
How long until my House in the Canadian Rockies becomes tropical beachfront?
Let me be the first to say that running out of oil will cause global catastrope long before global warming will. I do believe we will see ice caps melting, seas rising, and coastal flooding in the next 100 years, but by then the world's population will be down to about 50-100 million, and we can all just move to higher ground.
It's nice and cool in my new Hummer v2.
How many other 2005s do they have records of? If this is the only one, it will be the warmest, coldest, shortest, and longest 2005 on record forever!
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
On a non related note real estate valuations in Siberia and Canada are rising to new highs.
**Life is too short to be serious**
It's the placebo effect, I tell you! All that ash falling to the ground looks sort of like snow, so it just makes everyone feel a little colder! Take that!
Volcanic eruptions are so 1980. Let's have some kind of impact with a comet or something.
That should provide way more stuff to block out the sun. Should be really cool after that, and it wouldn't take yet another a boring volcanic eruption.
/sig
It has come to our notice that you have been using the registered trademark of our client GOD(TM) for justifying Mr George Bush's actions. This is a cease and desist order as our client has never authorized any of Mr George Bush's actions and frankly considerd such advertising offensive as Mr George Bush happens to be an employee of our rival firm.
Thanking You
The only lawyer in heaven
**Life is too short to be serious**
Wild grapes were groing in Sweden during the neolithic age, about 6000 years ago. We'd be lucky to even grow them in green houses now.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
This sounds great until you realize that more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather. And that it will shift climate zones so that regions which were once temperate become deserts, or deserts become rainforests. A shift in the atmospheric equilibrium will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, and more intense rains and flooding. The sudden melting of vast quantities of land-locked ice will release pressure from the earth and potentially lead to earthquakes (did you know that the island of Great Britain is slowly tilting because of the enormous weight of ice that was lifted during the last Ice Age? And that happened gently over thousands of years.)
You know, maybe humans are responsible for global warming, and maybe they're not. But it's happening, and perhaps it would be prudent to do what we can to not enhance the warming any further. Because you know, why fuck with the one planet we've got?
No, correlation is not causation. But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data.
Science is hard; in many fields it's impossible to prove causation completely. But when you have a theory, and the theory holds up to all the available data, you act as if the theory were true and make decisions based on that. You don't over-react as long as there are competing theories that imply otherwise, but this is one more piece of data to suggest that global warming is very real and quite possibly man-made.
The "quite possibly" means that we shouldn't over-react; as you say, the correlation need not imply causation. But as the burden of evidence falls on the side of man-made global warming, it becomes increasingly dangerous to rely on "Yeah, but are you really, utterly, totally, completely sure?" arguments against action.
My wife always complains that I stand there with the refrigerator door open looking for something to eat. Now I won't take her crap, and I'll look around the fridge longer with the damn door open and I can help global warming at the same time. Maybe people will start looking up to me as some kind of hero...
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
Answer:
* The intermediate period where famine and human suffering are caused by difficulty in both regions due to growing human population and temp. shinking food supply
* Massive flooding along costal areas
* Increased weather event strength due to warmer tropic waters
* (and this is sure to get me modded +1 True) The poor Canadians when Texas gets the US to invade due to Texas becoming a desert... "YEE HA"
I saw a program, i believe from the BBC on Global Dimming a few months ago. The idea being that at the same that we have been upping the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere, we have also been blocking out the sun with the various soots and particulate matter that goes with it. This drove us into a net cooling period during those years, as the sunlight was reflected back into space. The researcher explained that this may be why global warming hasnt been as evident as it should have been in the past 30 years.
Now that we burn cleaner gas, and try and be more environmentally friendly, this reflective layer of the atmosphere is getting thinner. this then compounds the global warming aeffect already in motion. perhaps that is what we are seeing today.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
After having read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, I am thinking people who pick sides on this issue just like to argue. Crichton is against claims of global warming. Everybody's got an agenda.
We don't even know how much we don't know about our planet. How about we try our best not to pollute the planet we live in while enjoying life?
PS I am not endorsing the book. It has an awkward plot and idiot characters listening to a lot of "explanations" by "experts".
Try telling that to people living in low lying coastal areas or on small islands.
1 Most of the interior of America is very lightly populated as people want to live near the sea. Once sea velel rises and Phoenix and Chicago are beachfront land in the mid west will be much better utilized.
2 Siberia and Canada are almost unused land right now as they are too cold. With enough Global warming people can start living there
3 Large no of people lead very inefficient and lazy lives on a number of pacific islands. Once these are below the sea these people will become available for low wage work in our factories.
4 The areas of land submerged by sea should silence the critics that we are not doing anything to replace the oil we are pumping out of the earth. All these submerged plants and animals will become oil.
5 Africa has too many wars but the Sahara is relatiely peacefull. Heat up Africa and increase the Sahara in size and you will have an Australia like continent- first world country. Extra people refer to point 3 .
**Life is too short to be serious**
Those irresposible Republicans! They're screwing things up across the entire galaxy.
Article
And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
The author must realize that having record low eruptions in 1998 and 2005 is the cause of the temperature hike.
See what happened in 1816.
Because it can trigger the next ice age, like a less dramatized version of "The Day After Tomorrow." "if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world." http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_age s.html
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/101014 0.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1083419,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
Or just google it yourself.
It wasn't so long ago that the "consensus" of the physics community held Newtonian physics to be immutable, and before Newton the "consensus" included all sorts of things that we know today to be 100% false. Climatology is one of the most politicized of the hard sciences and there are more missing pieces to the puzzle than hard information. It's quite likely that the "odd man out" could be interpretting the little data we have correctly in the same way that Columbus was right and his many detractors were wrong. Heck, like Columbus the guy that's proven "correct" will probably eventually find out that he didn't end up where he thought he was going.
That's the interesting bit about science. In the long run it is not a popularity contest. Just because 100 scientists believe that something is so does not make it true, especially when these scientists have political axes to grind. Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations. As more data is amassed and better models are made most of the theories we have today will be proven to be more incorrect than correct.
Texas is a desert all ready and has been for some time now.
Suppose the temperate band moves 5 degrees towards the poles, what happens? Would there be the same amount of arable land, or more, or less? Hint: the world is round like a ball. The further north you go from the equator, the less the diameter is, and consequently the less surface there is per degree. Furthermore, most of the current temperate zone was under broadleaved woodland for thousands of years before the coming of agriculture, and we're still using the depth of fertile soil laid down in thousands of years of leaf-fall. But the current tundras have been tundras for thousands of years, and don't have any great depth of soil fertility. So it does matter if the temperate belt shifts five degrees towards the poles.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
DEAR FRIEND,
MY NAME IS MRS.LARISA NITSKAYA,PERSONAL SECRETARY TO MR.BORIS MIKHAIL
KHODORKOVSKY,THE ARRESTED CHAIRMAN/CEO OF SMIRNAUG SIBERIAN LAND AND TITLE, SPB IN SIBERIA, RUSSIA.
I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF SIBERIAN LAND OWNERSHIP DEEDS WHICH WHERE HE HANDED
OVER TO ME BEFORE HE WAS DETAINED AND NOW BEEN TRIED IN RUSSIA FOR
FINANCING POLITICAL PARTIES(the Union of Right Forces,led by Boris
Nemtsov, and Yabloko, a liberal/social democratic party led by Gregor
Yavlinsky) OPPOSED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MR.VLADMIR PUTIN,THE PRESIDENT
THEREBY LEADING TO THE FREEZING OF HIS FINANCES AND ASSETS.AFTER
SEARCHING THROUGH THE BOOKS OF YOUR COUNTRY'S CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES HERE IN SIBERIA, RUSSIA I AM CONTACTING YOU TO ASSIST ME TO
RE-PROFILE THE LAND DEEDS AND EQUALLY INVEST SAME ON HIS BEHALF.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SIBERIAN LAND TO BE RE-PROFILLED IS TWO HUNDRED AND
SIXTEEN MILLION ACRES AND YOU WILL BE TITLED 12% OF THIS MAGNIFICENT TRACT
FOR YOUR MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
AS SOON AS I RECEIVE YOUR ACCEPTANCE,I WILL SEND YOU THE NECESSARY
DETAILS AND MY IDENTIFICATION.
YOURS SINCERELY,
MRS.LARISA NITSKAYA
asf a fasd f asdf a fasd fasdljfl ajkfjowieiotqwe q rqwer qoiwe roqiwue rioqiwe r
qwer qowieru rqiwueiru oiquwe ro qowie ro qowierfhj cv ahsdfi
Read this book The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, if you are genuinely interested in doing something about climate chnage.
It is brilliant and timely call to action for everyone to reconsider their energy use as it applies to C02 emmissions.
Which will make some insurance companies suffer until the government bails them out - but even the rich homeowners there will simply move to the new coastal areas in central-califoria/death-valley.
The vast majority of people in coastal areas, even in the US, are not 'rich homeowners'.
A large percentage (most?) of the worlds population lives within a few miles of a sea.
It's not too late to help lower the global average temperature. Become a swashbuckling disciple of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
http://www.venganza.org/
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Only at a local level, these figures are global.
so how can anyone predict the weather for the next 2 1/2 months based on historical records and in face of supposedly dramatic climate changes...
The figures are global and also average, so it is possible to calculate ahead how cold things would have to get to reduce the "total" temperature and say whether or not that is likely. If the world record for an average score at some game was, say 9.5 over a 10 game season, and after 8 games a player had scored a total of 90 points, you'd feel pretty confident in saying that a record was coming, regardless of the fact that the last two games haven't been played.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
Fact: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.
No, that's not true at all. All terrestrial measurements have shown a steady increase - the satellite measurements were the exceptions, and showed a much slower increase in temperature.
Until last year, fossil fuel advocates pointed to the satellite measurements as refutation of the warming trend. Then, a bunch of clever guys realised that the problem was that the satellite measurements were taking an average of a rapidly heating troposphere (where we live) and a cooler upper section of the atmosphere.
There's a great discussion of this in the rather frightening book The Weather Makers by Australian scientist Tim Flannery, which is due for release in the US about now.
Living a city where there are two major cities sitting vary close to each other and a major airport between them. (Dallas - Ft. Worth) You start to see patterns that make you think a bit more about really is causing global warming. What you can all ways see temperature wise in the north Texas area is that it is most of the time 5 to 10 degrees F cooler West of the Dallas - Ft. Worth area. Then you moving east in to Ft. Worth the temp starts going up and the more east that you go the higher the temp gets. Done and told Dallas (being east of Ft. Worth and the DFW airport is all ways 2 to 3 degrees hotter then Ft. Worth. So, what is making Dallas hotter then Ft. Worth? The fact that the normal jet stream of air here moves mostly west to east. So when the Sun shines on the concrete or asphalt on the roads all day long and makes the ground that much hotter and then the wind blows the air over this increased temperatures of the roads and airport runways it just keeps building until it gets back over an area where there are less roadways to start cooling the air. Every one keeps looking at pollution as being the main reason for global warming. It is a factor that should not be over looked but no one is looking at the fact that cities are growing all over the world so this means that roadways are being added to and widened all the time. Thus adding to the surface area of a really big heater. Having lived out in a country environment I know that once the sun goes down it starts to cool off, but the city is not the same. It can take a city a hour or two to start to see any real drop in temperatures.
OT: As for those irresponsible Republicans - compare Argentina's deficit before their currency crash with USA's current deficit.
The Raven
Record highs?
/ mars_snow_011206-1.html
Hmm. I don't think so.
After all, they're still finding Viking farms under the ice in Greenland.
I suspect that we have people looking at short term changes and ignoring the geological evidence about cyclic changes in world temperatures.
As another data point look at: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem
Somehow, I don't think what man is doing on Earth has much of an effect on Mars.
The promised information about him is here:
President, George C. Marshall Institute.
Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Member, CEI Board of Directors. President and Founder, Solutions Consulting. President Emeritus, Global Climate Coalition. President, Solutions Consulting, Inc. Former Senior Vice President, Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc. Chief Administrative Officer, Center for Naval Analyses.
According to federal lobbying records, O'Keef e was a paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil, 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the issues of environment and climate change, with contacts with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. He writes frequently about climate change in his presidentail role at the George C. Marshall Institute.
O'Keefe has a long history of involvement with the fossil fuel industry. O'Keefe also served as Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a position he held until 2000.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1,645,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $515,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Petroleum Institute
Currently "deactivated", the Global Climate Coalition was "A coalition of companies and trade associations seeking to present the views of industry in the global warming debate."
I see this a lot in articles about this issue and I think it needs addressed: "A vocal minority of scientists say the warming climate is the result of a natural cycle." Me: no duh! No one's saying it's NOT part of a natural cycle. What is alarming though is that the current trend has occurred faster than other periods in history which means an investigation was needed to determine just why that is. All the evidence has led to the affect of the industrial revolution. That's the one thing differing from all other "natural cycle" trends of the past. What can be done about it? Nothing. Short of an asteroid hitting us and turning our clocks back 200+ years I don't see anything meaningful being done to change anything. As the expression goes "the genie can't be put back in the bottle." On top of this, global population has forced the governments to lock down just where we can live tighter than a popcorn fart so you have a hard time escapeing the toxic asthma bothering gasses and pollution of the city.
Suppose the temperate band moves 5 degrees towards the poles, what happens? Would there be the same amount of arable land, or more, or less?
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has the slightest idea.
And even worse, nobody will ever have.
You see, climate is the poster child for dynamic complex systems, and is inherently unpredictable beyond a few days.
Climate is obviously affected by global mean temperature, but is not the same thing.
A lot of people here seems to think that a warmer Earth will be just like now, but you know, warmer.
In reality, even a small change of mean temperature is going to cause massive disruptions in climate patterns, but we have no way to predict them.
Cheers,
Carlos Cesar
Yeah, becaause it was those damn Newtonian special interest groups holding back Einsteinian physics.
So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming? They want to believe we're poisoning our atmosphere because... they hate convenience? Seems to me the only side with something to gain is the anti-warming crowd.
I'm not suggesting that the crap we pour into the atmosphere has no effect on our climate, but rather that, as the article sort of states, temperatures are only approaching record levels since the advent of systematic temperature records. If we look back over several major climatic cycles in the Earth's history however, what we are experiencing is actually nothing special.
That said, I'm off to buy some factor 50 sunblock.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Jebus Griste, did you even read the page you just linked to?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I think the people looking at long-term trends, via ice core samples, would tell you that when the planet has a period of high atmospheric CO2 concentrations, bad things follow. We are in a period with high atmospheric CO2 levels.
Well, the intelligent response then is to minimize activity that could potentially be causing global warming until we better understand the impact and the implications. Look before we leap. No?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming?
- - - - -
How about the billions of dollars in "global warming" research grant?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-04.html
What an utter load of lies and deception. These issues are known about, and have been carefully tackled many, many times. To state these goes beyond mere ignorance, to deliberate attempts to mislead the public.
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
That's because the satellites were taking an average of several layers, the weather balloons weren't accounting for improvements in radiation shielding technology and so on. Adjusted, they now fully match the results we have.
Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
Not according to the actual data. The proportional increase in carbon dioxide is huge, by all available data. And yes, ALL of that increase is due to human activity, because for example measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the sea shows that the sea is actively absorbing CO2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
This is a strawman. Hell, the most common greenhouse gas is probably Nitrogen. Anything has a greenhouse effect. The issue is whether the gas is a cause of climate change or not. Water, despite it's significance, isn't. Changes in water concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly evened out - we call it rain. But it never rains carbon dioxide. The action of water is as a positive multiplier for global warming - warming increases the level of equilibrium of water in the atmosphere, which makes CO2 a more significant effect, not less.
Don't listen to these 'friends of science'. They are lying to you.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels, there is headway to be made in fuel efficiency, there are ways to lessen the envirnmental footprint of humankind. Many of these things, if done properly, will not negatively affect quality of life. So why don't we?
Please tell me one energy source that does not cause any issues when implemented on a scale needed to solve humankind's energy needs? The only one that is close may be fusion...but it is not usable yet. I agree, we should investigate other thing...but rushing headlong into alternatives could also cause problems.
And in my view, it is better to suspend actions of questionable results than it is to continue them without knowing.
Are you advocating stopping all energy production? (well...more specifically concentration)
badness 10000
Little correction - Newton was not 100% wrong. In fact, it is amazing exactly how right he was when applied to the stuff he dealt with - apples, carts, stuff you can see and touch. What Einstein did was to offer an extension to Newton's theories that would expand them to the atomic level. What this means is that you want to listen to what the scientists, and then see if it makes sense. You might not be able to come up with the theory of everything, but you might at least find out who the crackpots are. Science is a tool - use it. Saying that everything will change anyway, and that you can ignore everything that a scientists says means you're throwing science away as a tool.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Well, at this rate in another ten years Republicans will acknowledge global warming. Of course, they'll just write it off as another sign that the rapture is imminent, and push us all to accept intelligent design before it's too late.
Columbus? What was he "correct" about? The earth being round? Everyone knew that then. The myth that there was any common perception in 1492 that the earth was flat was created by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus, written centuries later. (source: James Leowen, "Everything You've Been Taught is Wrong" -- great book, BTW)
-----
Kvetch is Yiddish for "throw an exception" --Dr. Ron Cytron
Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations.
I understand the economic motivations of scientists working for oil companies and related industries. What are the economic motivations of scientists who think global warming is at least a partial result of human activity? (Other than, of course, the economic benefits of human survival.)
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
The graph in the times shows 145 years of data, and the average it uses is a 30 year average from 1961 - 1990. Never mind that they can't count. Why doesn't the graph use a 145 year average? The warmest years on the graph are 1990 to present. It is interesting that according to the graph, 1960 - 1980 recorded more cool years than warm!
again, reading the graph, from 1880 - 1910, there was a warming period that was even more significant than the one currently observed. Why?
From 1910 - 1940, there was a very significant decrease in temperateure. Why?
So, from 1880 - 1910 I'm sure everyone was afraid of the next heat wave
and from 1910 - 1940, there was an ice age headed our way.
Interesting that this graph shows a classic bell shaped curve that we all learned to love in our college statistics classes. It is safe to predict regular variations that follow the same pattern. Therefore, I predict in 20 - 50 years (a very short time span in the grand scheme of things), that a cool down will occur.
And the global mean from 1950 to 1990? Why those years? Did they happen to give the result the author wanted?
They are playing a numbers racket with you, people. As geeks you should see right through this stufff. For shame.
Yeah those are based on fuzzy logic and models that predict 2-5 degrees C warming for the 20th century that turned out to be .6 Degrees C. So we can take those with a grain of salt.
But even factoring in worst case fronm your point, going by your quote, and realizing Proto multiplied times the wrong number we get 20 Centimeters. or 7.1 inches in the next 100 years. RUN PEOPLE RUN THE SEA IS GOING TO RISE 7 INCHES IN A HUNDRED YEARS THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN OUTRUN THAT!!!!!
Divided by a factor of five (which is particularly alarmist), that means which we'll reach max melt of all arctic areas (absurd) we have increased that melt to the point where total meltdown is 38,000 years away.
But that is an unrealistic scenario based upon models that cannot predict present temperatures, and are often wrong by a factor of 4 or 5.
Completely ignoring any changes in the future 38 millenia, the negative logarithmic progression of greenhouse warming*, and the fact that winter isn't going to stop happening anytime soon.
Regardless of all that of BS, you are completely ignoring the fact that even worse case scenario we aren't talking about drastic sea level rises. Do you agree that even based on your quote we are still looking at fairly moderate sea level changes that are nothing to worry about. Or are you simply trying to distract from my point because even in your scenario the sea level rise is minor (worst case(bordering on the absurd) scenario) so you'd rather play a game of distracting from the fundamental point.
In fact based upon those numbers and all the other scaremongering they don't even look at a linear progression, but a positive logarithmic, which goes completely against everything we know about greenhouse warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html
i ghteningSuni.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/Br
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
We're talking about a BIG problem, and all I can see is +5 funny posts.
Thank you America.
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
Well, consider. This isn't a really bad Hollywood movie like "The Day After Tomorrow", it is reality, and there is natural law to mediate between nature and your nightmares. The fact is, if the flooding you speak of occurs, it won't happen such that a bunch of lowland dwellers go to sleep Tuesday night, dry, and wake up Wednesday morning floating on their mattresses. We will see it coming, people and businesses can migrate (and they will... believe me, they will.)
Again, if the climate is changing along these lines, you can be certain that just as Florida's coral outcrop goes under and provides zillions of new acres of game fish habitat, other parts of the country will change also. Areas that are too cold for raising oranges, for instance, will warm up and become useful in that way. Areas like mine, that see -40 degree temperatures some winters will see (perhaps) -35 degrees instead, and we won't have to plug in our cars as many evenings, saving some energy. Death Valley will probably still suck every day of the year.
And so on. The one thing you can be certain of is that things will change, and as they change, humans will adapt.
I see no reason for anyone to panic, or even seriously worry, at this point. We should pay attention, and we are. There is no indication we are facing any big changes in the near future, nor any sudden ones in any future as far as global warming goes. Nature will supply us with the facts no matter what they are. In the meantime, the sky isn't falling, and that's a fact. The sky might move a little, though we cannot be certain of this, and if it does, it'll do so slowly and gently and we will have plenty of time to rearrange ourselves as required, both as a civilization and as individuals.
And you know what else? If and as change comes, we'll no doubt turn it to our advantage. More heat, more energy, more liquid water, more opportunity. It's what we do. The ones of us who aren't running in circles, screaming hysterically about global warming, that is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.