Slashdot Mirror
Maldives Government Holds Undersea Cabinet Meeting
Hugh Pickens writes "The president of the Maldives and 11 ministers, decked out in scuba gear, held a cabinet meeting 4m underwater to highlight the threat of global warming to the low-lying Indian Ocean nation. While officials said the event itself was light-hearted, the idea is to focus on the plight of the Maldives, where rising sea levels threaten to make the nation uninhabitable by the end of the century. President Mohamed Nasheed and his cabinet spent half an hour on the sea bed, communicating with white boards and hand signals and signed a document calling for global cuts in carbon emissions. The Maldives has already begun to divert a portion of the country's billion-dollar annual tourist revenue to buy a new homeland as an insurance policy against climate change that threatens to turn the 300,000 islanders into environmental refugees. Emerging out of the water, a dripping President Nasheed removed his mask to answer questions from reporters and photographers crowded around on the shore. 'We are trying to send a message to the world about what is happening and what would happen to the Maldives if climate change isn't checked,' he said, bobbing around in the water with his team of ministers. 'If the Maldives is not saved, today we do not feel there is much chance for the rest of the world.'"
Apparently they were under a lot of pressure.
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
No one's listening, OK. Perhaps you might considering enriching uranium instead. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. You words might have more urgency if they were backed by NUCLEAR FORCE. That's all I'm saying...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
yeah right they are going to buy a new homeland. that money shall land in the pockets of politicians and the islanders will shake their fists at westerners and make bombs, because brave president whatever his name was, tried to show us.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Davey Jones' Locker?
No amount of CO2 cutbacks is going to stop climate change and the sea levels rising, even if CO2 emissions dropped to zero tomorrow. The relevant time constants are from hundreds to thousands of years.
This pretty much highlights how it's all primarily a media circus and political game. The science is lost entirely in the noise.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Really? Intensive construction projects seem more "sane" than purchasing real estate?
They should totally pick the Middle East. Lots of land, friendly people...
I think other countries should try it, but without the aqualungs.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Because we know that the Dutch live in a region with extensive mudlands, which the Maledives miss. And we know that the Dutch don't live on about 1200 atolls (hey, the word atoll even origins from the maledivian atolhu), but on the deltas of two large european rivers, Meuse and Rhine.
i guess its gods punishment for being them being gay? or european? or something.
That's right. But a lot of the Netherlands is below sea level whereas the Maldives are above sea-level. So who has most to fear?
Around 1970 the sea level dropped by 20-30 cms and since then there has been no sea-level rise: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54486.htm
But don't let scientific and historical facts get in the way of a good piece of hysteria.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
are you telling me the media, politicans and "experts" have been lieing to us?!?! say it it's so!
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It's a start, I suppose.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Darling it's better, down where it's wetter, take it from me.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
That's right. But a lot of the Netherlands is below sea level whereas the Maldives are above sea-level. So who has most to fear?
The Maledives, because their ratio of land area to coast line (yes, I know, a natural coast line is infinitely long, but we are talking dikes here, which have a minimum size) is much worse than that of the Netherlands.
And you forget that all dutch land that is below sealevel is artificial anyway and won by closing off vast areas from the Northern Sea with large embankments, which in turn are built to be as short as possible for a maximum of land gain.
Whoever suggests that this is a feasible way for the Maledives where the average distance between two atolls is much longer than even the large Afsluitdijk (20 mls), got something wrong.
Am I the only one who thought of a supervillain hideout while reading the title? Maybe if they had some flame throwing, robotic dinosaurs they could battle global warming.
Just to give you a better picture: Less than 5% of all Dutch people live within walking distance to the coast, but all of the Maledivians do. The largest island is Malé, with just about a square mile (2.7 sq km). So while 95% of all Netherlands can hide behind several layers of dikes, none of the Maledivians can. Or for some other numbers: The whole of the Maledives covers 298 sq km of land, stretched over 823 km x 150 km of ocean, completely different than the Netherlands with more than 41000 sq km of land stretched over 360 km x 280 km.
The whole length of the Dutch dikes is about 3000 km, so if we estimate that an average dike is 30 m wide, a similar construction would amount to 30% of the whole maledives used for the dikes, while less than 0,25% of the Netherlands are actual dikes.
I have no sympathy for a country that forces its people to convert to islam and subjects almost 1/3 of the population to a form of serfdom. In addition if you are not a muslim and a native then you are either executed, imprisoned or expelled. Finally the country is extremely racist when it comes to non-muslims. I've had the unfortunate pleasure of being sent to the main island a few times for work. While the country is very pretty the people are not with the exception of the lowly peasants.
To get a perspective on the Maldives, start here and then click to zoom in 14 times. I suggest opening the link in a new tab or window (Slashdot code won't let me make the link tag do that for you).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The following interview Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedisch expert on sea-level geophysics, explains how the data has been misrepresented to feed the global warming scare http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf. The reality is that little has happened to the sea level over the past decades.
Photo Gallery http://surl.me/2c67 (Flickr)
I have an idea. Let's do the same in Australia. The way our politicians carry on booing, jeering, calling each other names and such is disgraceful. (Actually I'm resisting the urge to suggest a 1 hour meeting under water WITHOUT the scuba gear). I guess it's similar the world over. No wonder we're in the economic, social and environmental crapper.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Yes Bob. Today, the mayor of the island of Krakatoa held a city council meeting in the caldera of the volcano to draw attention to the fact that the island will, eventually, blow up again and to urge the world to find some way to stop plate tectonics and cool the core down until such a thing isn't possible anymore.
Unfortunately, they forgot one thing Bob.
THEY WERE IN THE CALDERA OF A VOLCANO!
Needless to day, the loss of life was total, save for three councilmen who boycotted the meeting in protest.
As of this hour, an emergency vote is taking place to replace the dumbass...err deceased (always get those mixed up) politicians'.
Also, there's some sort of festival going on. The natives tell me the name translates into "We have cleansed the gene pool, THANK GOD!".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I welcome our new warming climate overlords (and cheaper scuba gear prices).
Sig it.
There has been some sea level rise, but in the last 2,000 years the rise has been almost flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
It is funny to think that man made lakes may have reduced sea level rise, albeit a very small amount.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Also this chart shows the sea level rise is about the same pace as it was
prior to WW2 before the post war economic boom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
All in all, the sea level rise is the same pace for over 150 years.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png Right, don't let facts distract you... Although one has to admit that most of this rise is, as far as I remember, due to the thermal extension of water. Or studies by institutes like yale, known for their low level of scientific understanding: http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2035 Keep the sarcasm
Yes, purchasing real estate outside your jurisdiction puts you at the mercy of an external party.
Traditional methods to mitigate this problem (genocide for instance) are frowned upon.
What makes things even more problematic is that the dutch North Sea coast is relatively shallow, while the Maldives are 350km out in the ocean where it is much deeper. So even if you did throw some dikes between a few atolls (which doesn't seem impossible from the looks of it) you would end up with a lot of vulnerable land much lower than sea level. A few meters of difference can be easily done, but dozens of meters? Lets hope no one has to poke his finger in that dike.
You could try to create artificial islands like they did off the coast of Dubai, but due to the underwater terrain you'd need to haul up a massive amounts of sand.
The only choice they have is to reinforce their current islands, but they probably don't want to erect concrete barriers to ward off erosion and slowly build up landmass. It's either that or pack up and leave.
This sig is intentionally left blank
it would work if all else remains static. Sadly, that is not the case. China is adding 1-2 NEW COAL PLANTS EACH WEEK. These are
Even with the growth in hydro and wind and Solar and Nukes that China is planning, if they continue this course, they will exceed ALL OF AMERICA's emission by 2015. By 2018, they will exceed ALL OF America's AND Western EU. By 2020 (11 very short years), they will account for slightly more than 1/2 of all of the CO2 that man has emitted through history. IOW, all of the cuts that we do, will be worthless.
But it still get worse. In particular, once we push Cap/trade, other nations will have a strong incentive to grab our manufacturing. And who will be pushing "cheap" coal plants? GE coal and other companies. Many companies will work to take advantage of the difference in prices (labor and energy).
So, with knowing the above, how do drop the emissions and solve the climate change issues? Here is my idea.
OTH, China has moderate amount of emissions based on size, HOWEVER, is one of the lowest efficiency in emissions/GDP. In addition, it has extremely high transportation costs (rail in China, then boat to here, and then rail around). As such, they would have 90-100% of the tax.
American goods made here have a moderate emissions per land and moderate efficient emissions. OTH, our transportation emissions are minor. As such, we might see 30-40% of the tax.
Several points on this:
Ideally, this same approach is used for a number of pollutants. For example, Mercury is one that is screaming to be controlled. China is the largest polluter of it and it will continue to increase with the coal. Likewise, the same is true of their SO* emissions. By applying a slowly increasing tax on nations based on their emissions, we can encourage ALL NATIONS to change.
One last point. Many nations will scream that they should be exempt because they are Developing nations. If that is done, it will simply encourage them to have lower costs goods by cheating. In addition, nearly all of the smaller developing nations HAVE low emissions. They would be at the low end of the tax.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As evidence mounts that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming isn't the disaster the chicken littles have been preaching for the last 2 decades, the more dramatic, outlandish, and shrill the commentary will become. Expect to see more of these stunts from both countries and entities expecting to receive a big pay day from the industrialized nations, while the evidence points to a theory that needs serious revising and models that aren't very accurate at the most basic of predictions.
To date a lot of the proxy data used to bolster the claim that the observed warming trend was "unprecedented" turns out to be extremely poorly put together. The recent Briffa revelations are so bad and Briffa so resistant to releasing his data (which is contrary to scientific methodology) that one has to wonder if there was deliberate fraud. In climate research this has happened before. The original, discredited Mann hockey stick was another example where a researcher refused to release both data and methodology, and when forced to told the world that data was lost (until it was found by accident on his FTP server). Both examples are indications that peer review in some fields is nothing more than a cliquish acceptance of a forgone conclusion.
Perhaps this stunt will bring attention to the matter that current understanding of AGW is poor at best and that current climate models are woafully inadequate (and perhaps a tad overly dramatic). More research is needed and more importantly the people conducting that research need to strictly adhere to scientific method if we are to have a clear view of the mechanisms that shape our climate and what the human population effect on it.
Final Thought : Having researchers act like a group of 14 year old girls that decide who is "in" and who is "out" isn't science - it's dogma. It does little to advance the course of science - but it makes great reading. Better drama than day time TV.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
So, maybe you missed the memos? The one over a year ago where the Bush Administration confirmed that man-mad global warming was a real threat? The one where the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to regulate CO2 as a pollutant? The one where every nation in the world is meeting in Copenhagen in two months to draft a replacement to the Kyoto protocol, because ten years on the climate threat is considered more dangerous than ever? How about the one where the several thousand scientists who contributed to the last IPCC report don't care much for your baseless, non-scientific opinions that denigrate decades of careful research and observations?
>The one over a year ago where the Bush Administration confirmed that man-mad global warming was a real threat?
I'm not sure why you would think that I would care about what a US administration thinks. Perhaps you think former President Bush is a good diviner of scientific truth? Personally I think such an attitude is a bit crazy, but if you love the ex President that much, good for you.
You're much more likely to get my attention by backing up your opinion with specifics, like scientists, studies, and actual data. If you think that a Government regulatory agency that won't follow it's own rules and squashes dissent combined with a legal system is a good arbiter of how science should be conducted, then I can't help you. Mind you I'm not saying that AGW isn't real, only that the state of the current theory is so poor that it makes little sense to base a bet worth a few trillion on it at this point.
>The one where every nation in the world is meeting in Copenhagen in two months to draft a replacement to the
>Kyoto protocol, because ten years on the climate threat is considered more dangerous than ever?
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect. When evidence is mounting that theory is broken, why would the "world" rush to enforce rules that are based on a models that don't work? Hardly seems "scientific", but traditionally patience and a clear understanding of a problem has never been a politicians strong suit, on the other hand lemming like following is traditionally a trait found in the political class (ie those going to Copenhagen)
>How about the one where the several thousand scientists who contributed to the last IPCC
>report don't care much for your baseless, non-scientific opinions that denigrate decades of
>careful research and observations?
Biffa was one of the IPCC leads. Here is a person that REFUSED to release his data or methodology until forced to by a publication several years after the fact. This also meant that studies that followed using his data in their conclusions still had the original problems replicated compounding the problem. Why would any research not release both data and methodology after they've been published? That in and of itself strikes me as "non-scientific".
If a researcher wishes to publish papers where his little black box/book holds the methods and data for his fancy graphs and no one is allowed to look inside, then we should change their title from Researcher or Scientist to Vicar. If you choose to follow said Vicar, that is your business.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
All in all, the sea level rise is the same pace for over 150 years.
Nonsense.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html (The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia's national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world.)
Quote: "We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1870 to 2004. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose almost 20 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.7 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise between 1870 to 2004." (emphasis mine)
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
That was a nice public stunt. I don't think any news show on the planet is willing to miss on that one.
And of course I can't imagining anyone seeing a beautiful tropic island go forever.
I only hope that as many people as possible will from now on always have to think about them just destroying a beautiful place that they at least wanted to see once, when doing something that raises sea levels.
Unfortunately, with the biggest polluters being companies, that can afford making 13 senators openly defend gang rape and forbidding employees to sue for it (Haliburton), can start whole wars for their own profit (Exxon, also Haliburton, etc), sell drugs that are worse than crack and crystal meth to people and children "for everyday use" to make them addicted (Eli Lily) and create genetically modified crops that make the whole world junkies on their needles, sell biochemical warfare agents as sweeteners or kill whole towns by putting toxines in the water (all Monsanto), I don't see anything becoming better until there is a revolution with heads being chopped off.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
"In a common greenhouse global-warming scenario, the Maldives have been condemned to become flooded in 50 years or, at the most, 100 years. However, our study of past and present sea-level changes shows no sign of any sea-level rise. On the contrary, the Maldives have seen a sea-level fall in the past 30 years. This sea-level fall is likely to be the effect of an increased evaporation and intensified northeast monsoon over the central Indian Ocean. We are confident that the people of the Maldives are not condemned to become flooded in the near future."
It all starts at 0
Unnecessary propaganda.
How long have these islands be over the sea?
Did they ever take a real look at that?
Was that 500 years? 1500? 5000 years?
I don't know about anybody else, but I wasn't thinking in terms of dikes between islands; as you write, it's not exactly practical. I was thinking more in terms of seawalls around the islands they have. Done properly, basing them just off-shore (currently) you don't lose any of your land area, you gain slightly, and it's not that hard to raise them higher if needed.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
There have to be hundreds of ways one can use sinking of a nation into an advantage. First off move PirateBay there. Lets see the people don scuba gear to issue an injunction. Second of all, there has to be a host of laws (banking, stem cells, cloning, etc.) are much more effective when issued underwater than in a limited "normal world".
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect
The EU15 are on target to meet the Kyoto limits. The countries of the EU15 (those that formed the EU when Kyoto was agreed) consist of some of the most industrialised nations in the Western world. If you meant that some other large nations didn't sign up to Kyoto, then that is true, but you can't blame the ones that did for the ones that didn't.
So, someone goes down to the waterline at low tide and says "hey! Lookit all the unused land! So they build their house. Then when the tide comes back in, we're all supposed to cry that they're going to get flooded out?
Stupid.
Whether humans are here or not, water levels will rise and fall. It will happen to every coastal city, it's just a matter of time. Fortunately humans are possibly the most adaptable creatures on the planet. Certainly climate change will result in costs and even possibly some deaths, but in the big picture, they're really nothing more than inconveniences.
-Styopa
If they need a new homeland they shouldn't have to pay for it. Those who took their land from them should be forced to pay.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You go on about how scientists will do anything to get more grants, will you now admit fossil fuel industries, such as the oil companies, have deep pockets and can buy research themselves? Despite their deep pockets they have not yet produced peer reviewed studies showing Climate Change or ocean acidification is not happening. On one side there's science and on the other there's nothing but hot air.
That you dribble while spouting such nonsense without providing your own science reveals to me with some clarity that you have fallen passionately for deniers propaganda.
When the power goes out, I'm betting you'll be the first to fire up his diesel generator in order to continue posting such drivel to these forums.
Can you grow, gather, or hunt for your own food? If not you'll be depending on those who can, like me. I've hunted with nothing but a knife, can weave a net, and know where to look for drinking water. I have also preserved my own food, by canning, dehydrating or drying, and by smoking it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Call me old fashioned but if that had been a real cabinet meeting held underwater due to climate change induced by other countries, the prez wouldn't be signing a document calling for global cuts in carbon emissions, he'd be giving an order to assassinate the biggest polluters. btw Those billions of dollars for setting up shop in someone else's backyard kind of reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons in which Homer spent the entire city budget on waste removal, Sprindfield ended up drowning in it's own and everyone else's filth and then had to relocate to get away from the mess.
This is the revised penal code for the maldives. Surely a cabinet that makes such decisions are worthy of billions of aid !
They claim, by the way, that it is the duty of all muslims, "even in America", to do this.
I'm tempted, quite frankly, to not give a shit. Quite frankly, I hope their islands do not just disappear, but everyone of these racist assholes drowns in those rising waters. Slowly.
actually did the calculations a while back...
dig a canal from the mediterranian to the dead sea. 810 square km surface area, 422 metres below sea level - a very decent volume...
think it worked out to be (conservatively - assuming no gradient, i.e. surrounded by vertical cliffs) something like a 2mm drop for the world as a whole.
could generate a bit of hydro-electricity along the way...
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
If we are successful in our current pursuit of manmade global warming, by the end of the century, much of Antarctica could be habitable and productive. This seems a worthwhile tradeoff for slightly higher temperatures in the tropics and loss of some costal regions.
With more arable land and increased crop yields around the globe, the earth will be an Eocene paradise.
Life is short. If we have the ability to radically alter the climate of the earth for the better within our lifetimes, I say we go for it.
The moderators might not of:
a. understood
b.seen
c.took too seriously
d.all of the above
your post, but I laughed!
Thanks for a much needed chuckle...Well done, good sir!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
My new 42" TV uses slightly less power than my older 32" TV because the EU brought in laws to help countries meet their Kyoto agreements.
You didn't happen to post comments in Saturday's discussion on California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 has any affect whatsoever on global climate
How do you think Greenhouse Gases got that name? In a greenhouse they increase temperatures. Science not needed, though it can validate it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
China has passed the US as the world's greatest Carbon Dioxide emitter. Unless they already know most people probably wouldn't guess who number 3 is, Indonesia. Indonesia became number 3 by burning down forests and draining wetlands to plant oil palm plantations. And what's done with them? Biofuels are made to feed Europe's appetite and reduce it's own Carbon emissions. Oh and India have been building a lot of those coal fired plants too.
What I was shocked about was Australia passed the US as the world largest per capita emitter.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'm not sure why you would think that I would care about what a US administration thinks. Perhaps you think former President Bush is a good diviner of scientific truth? Personally I think such an attitude is a bit crazy, but if you love the ex President that much, good for you.
Bush was brought up because like you he was a big denier. Once he was forced to face the facts he could no longer deny.
You're much more likely to get my attention by backing up your opinion with specifics, like scientists, studies, and actual data.
The IPCC, Stern Report, etc. There are plenty of science studies reaching the conclusions you don't want to hear. Meanwhile there are no credible studies that conclude the climate is changing, getting warmer in places.
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you here. Those who pushed for Kyoto most, especially Europe, didn't keep their agreements. Now it doesn't matter much if we try to do something. Last year China passed the US as the biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases, and Australia passed the US as the world's biggest per capita emitter. Number 3 emitter, Indonesia, isn't even an industrialized nation.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
How did that Kyoto protocol go? It didn't work, and it didn't have the desired affect
The EU15 are on target to meet the Kyoto limits
Though I disagree with some of what GP says I have to agree with him here. Europe may of reduced it's own emissions, but it shifted the emissions elsewhere. The report you provided the link to even says the EU "promotion of biofuels in transport" was part of how emissions were reduced. Switching to biofuels only switched where the emissions happens. The third biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gases is now Indonesia. How did that happen? In order to feed Europe with those biofuels forests were burned down and wetland drained to plant oil palm plantations in Indonesia which are used to make biofuels for Europe. Europe is just as responsible for this as if they produced the emissions there.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If it is not real then there's nothing to debate. So that can not be the real debate. The real debate is what to do, if anything, if it is real.
it seems to be that warmer weather would increase crop yield, right?
Yea, we need more poison ivy. Meanwhile some crop yields are lower with higher levels of CO2.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Unfortunately, with the biggest polluters being companies
Not in the US. The government is the biggest polluter in the US.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
All in all, the sea level rise is the same pace for over 150 years. Nonsense. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html (The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is Australia's national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world.) Quote: "We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1870 to 2004. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose almost 20 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.7 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise between 1870 to 2004." (emphasis mine) CC.
I think you'll find CSIRO also found that the Maldives is affected by the fact they "mine" the protective coral reef for building materials thus exposing the islands to the sea with greatly reduced protection for the community. The odd thing is, they are still building large resorts, using coral. How fair dinkum is this fraud? I also believe you'll find that the oceans have not risen significantly over the 20th century. The rise, beginning in 1870 (the greatest rise in the earlier years) is due to the Little Ice Age ending. In addition, some parts of the Earth's surface are "sinking" and others are "rising" If the sea floor rises, of course sea water will be displaced. Additionally, there has been no change to Australia's National Datum (to my knowledge), neither have any airports been required to reset the local altimeter settings. Finally, there is no discernable rise in sea level in any major Australian port, at the many airfields that are on the shore, have a runway extending into the sea or are situated in areas of swamp. I always thought that water always sought its own level, so tidal effects aside, if the sea is rising in the Maldives it should be rising everywhere.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) H.L. Menc
" Ice is melting faster than expected and ocean levels are still due to rise at least a few meters." Not true. And so what if it was true. In the 1800s the Arctic Ice pack had shrunk enough for sailing vessels to transit from Atlantic to Pacific along the north coast of Canada. People need to get a little historic perspective.
a bad Idea.
They have the financial capabillities, the forward thinking government, and sense of urgency that such a plan may require.
There are challenges to shallow underwater building that deeper water buildings wouldn't and vice versa. I think it would be an awesome Idea well worth exploring especially if we can get a simple tidle generator to really work.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Cap-trade WILL NOT WORK. In fact, IT WILL BACKFIRE ON CARBON. We are BOTH in agreement on that. OTH, applying a tax based on CO2 emissions (and hopefully pollution as well) IS TOTALLY LEGAL.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
do you consider the CO2 from a wild fire, brush fire or forest fire to be man made if the fire was caused by arson.
Ce depend. If a fire is a controlled burn, then no. I'd actually consider it an attempt to prevent more CO2 emissions. If however it's started by someone like that person last year or the year before who started fires so they'd be called a hero then yes. In other words intent does matter some.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Finally, there is no discernable rise in sea level in any major Australian port
... "Observations of sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, southeastern Australia, based on a two-year record made in 1841–1842, a three-year record made in 1999–2002, and intermediate observations made in 1875–1905, 1888 and 1972, indicate an average rate of sea level rise, relative to the land, of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/year over the period 1841 to 2002. When combined with estimates of land uplift, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year, over the same period. These results are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of global average rise for the 20th century. They provide an important contribution to our knowledge of past sea level rise in a region (the Southern Hemisphere) where there is a dearth of other such data." ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016813.shtml ) Discernable? YMMV.
e.g.
I always thought that water always sought its own level, so tidal effects aside, if the sea is rising in the Maldives it should be rising everywhere.
I thought so as well, but — apparently not.
From Wikipedia: "Future sea level rise, like the recent rise, is not expected to be globally uniform (details below). Some regions show a sea-level rise substantially more than the global average (in many cases of more than twice the average), and others a sea level fall.[29] However, models disagree as to the likely pattern of sea level change." (There are other sources as well).
IMHO, there obviously are processes that lead to climate change, sea level rise etc.. — but humanity cannot do much about it, as the system is already on its way and time lags involved as well as (missing) ability to issue control prevent process termination.
Besides, I am to old to get involved.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Maybe Port Arthur is sinking too. I know the station in South Australia is. Water DOES seek its own level despite what the Climate Change proponents like to say. But then, why let facts get in the way? If you want a real authority on sea levels, look up Nils-Axel Morner. Besides, please don't include Tassie in Australia, the population in the rest of the continent do NOT have two heads. This whole climate change (AGW) is a lot of political garbage, driven by people who want a totalitarian world (Marxist)government. It has NOTHING to do with the weather. It's a new world order. Maybe the Soviet Union's most avid proponnets took over the Greenies?
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) H.L. Menc
As I said, water seeks its own level and the only influence can be the gravitational effect of the moon and maybe the shifting of the molten layer between the Earth's surface layer and the core. I forget what it's called but it is responsible for the shifting magnetic poles. If anything, I think you'll find the ocean levels dropping this northern winter as the ice cap is getting larger each winter. However, this whole thing is designed to scare people into accepting world marxism. Kiss your freedom goodbye if they succeed
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) H.L. Menc