Slashdot Mirror
Sea Level Rise Can't Be Stopped
riverat1 writes "Sea level rise won't stop for several hundred years even if we reverse global warming, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. As warmer water is mixed down into the oceans, it causes thermal expansion of the water. Under the best emissions scenario, the expected rise is 14.2 cm by 2100; under the worst, 32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone. Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that."
Serves you right. You let all those New Yorkers in and bad things happen....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".
It will be ok in North Carolina since their legislature said you can only use linear extrapolations of sea level rise to plan building in coastal areas. Guess they didn't get beyond simple algebra in school (no quadratic equations etc).
Should have known better than to try to save that ungrateful environment. I'm buying an SUV.
Suck my balls, you lying hippies!
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Mt. Everest
Jesus will come back and save us
Jesus is my lifeboat. This is all part of the plan. Relax.
We find some areas like the Grand Canyon and Aral Sea, even the deep Sahara and Outback, and we pump water from the oceans there.
This will work fine, don't worry about the consequences. Just think of the benefits!
Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.
Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that.
How big is the effect of thermal expansion in comparison to melting of ice? How much would be the additional rise in the worst case scenario?
We should start pulling all whales out of the oceans, I think.
Does anyone have a map of affected low-lying areas? Can we get any visual depictions of the chaos to come?
People don't respond well to small numbers. Most can't understand the impact of them. Shouting, "The ocean will rise by 14cm!" only begs for the response of "Well that's only ankle deep..."
Can't we take what we've learned from marketing sodas to the masses and apply it to important doomsday scenarios like this? Where are all of the Don Drapers of the scientific world anyway?
I really thought our cunning plan of exporting our coal consumption to Asia was going to work. I mean, nothing that happens over there is in the Environment, right?
This paper is just further evidence that we've already released enough CO2 to continue the warming trend. Even if all humans disappeared, like one of those History Channel Life After People episodes, the globe would continue to warm towards a non-ice age state.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
That coastal property I bought in Arkansas for 48 BTC is going up uP UP!!! My investments own.
have ample time to relocate those in "danger".
Funny. And you base that on what about our current politicians?
Oh, you mean relocate themselves. Got it.
Especially the belugas.
This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
Imagine the trenches under the water expanding and kicking off earthquakes and tsunamis. Any idea what would happen to the Marianas Trench?
Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".
The 14 - 32cm is only accounting for thermal expansion, not Ice / glaciers / aquifers.
Chomolungma
(Cause that's what it's called in the language the survivors are going to be speaking)
It's a poorly understood fact that any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over.
The obvious solution is to make a huge solar reflector that can be deployed for about 10 minutes every ten years. That should do the trick.
creates even more CO2 with our current energy generation
And we are just redistributing water already there: from the poles to the whole ocean.
What do Professor Vanessa and Dr. Dewey have to say about this?
Because, of course, the laws of nature obey your political ideology.
Here's news, moron, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Liberal vs. Conservative, Socialist vs. Capitalist. It does not fucking care. If pumping millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of two centuries is going to cause serious climactic changes, it is absolutely fucking irrelevant who you fucking vote for, or whether you masturbate to Vladimir Lenin or Ayn Rand.
Fucking hell, you ideological fanatics are a tiresome, mentally handicapped lot. Don't like evolution because you think it falsifies your religion. Don't like acid rain or climate change because it means there are consequences to wide-scale and uncontrolled industrial activity. Don't like regulations because it kills your particular get-rich-quick-while-fucking-the-economy scheme.
Is there any part of you at all that isn't a selfish, greedy piece of stupidity? Is there any part of you that gives the least little fuck for anyone other than yourself? Or are you really the vile repugnant sociopathic troll you appear?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Now that there is nothing we can do about it, the shills can stop pretending it isnâ(TM)t happening.
Already, Exxon has stated the obvious - burning fossil fuels is warming the planet by increasing the co2 level; however had to mute it with a statement that we can handle the change.
I suppose a whiff of honesty is better than before.
How to respond...
Option 1: Wish I had mod points
Option 2: .... And breathe! Sometimes a good rant is what it takes.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Indeed, the grandparent is ignoring the unwanted fact that drowning coastal urbanity will exacerbate their tendency to migrate to places they haven't messed up yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Expansion_in_liquids
Translation: You're a fucking idiot.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That global warming is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until your tootsies are completely soaked.
But when I think of climate change, I think of longer periods of temperatures that are outside what a human can really aclimate to, and food can really be produced in. For instance, daytime temperatures that approach or go over 100F during the day and don't get under 80F at night. In Europe we are seeing another winter with temperatures staying at freezing for a continuous period. This is a concern because if we can't produce food, we can't survive. Look at the desertification of Africa. Look at the fight over water going on now in Texas and California. There are going to be some things that are just going to involving restructuring, insurance, and large writeoffs. This will be over and forgotten each generation, like the recurring banking crisis that hits us every 20-30 years. The other, like weather and temperature changes, are not going to be so easily fixed.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Something tells me that 32.2cm won't affect all of Florida.
It's call tidal surge. And increased atmospheric energy leading to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes.
Florida's not going to be a very hospitable place to live or grow crops if large parts of it are under saltwater frequently.
Anyhow, screw future generations, I've got mine. They can just adapt to the new normal, they'll never miss what they never had in the first place.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
is this a joke? any 8 year old would know its density under various temperatures does differ... any person with eyes would really: have you ever made ice cubes, dumb ass? never realized how much of a pain in the ass it is to get them out of the ice cube tray?
It's a good time to own a cruise ship company.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You know why legitimate climate science can't take place? Do you know why half the world doesn't give a crap about global warming? Because we're tired of hearing fear-mongering scientific papers like this. If the climate 'scientists' didn't appear to be so damned biased we're probably be light years ahead of where we are right now.
Without California and New York around who's tax money are you pathetic hill billy shitbags going leech off?
For a good time ask two groups of people what the 1st derivative of sea level is:
1) Enviroloonies and save the earthers will step out of their Priuses (and/or SUVs) and swear Gaia earth mother goddess set the 1st derivative of sea level to be always and forever more zero until the evil political opponents raped the earth and elected Reagan. Zoning committees and housing developers will demand congress pass a law to make the 1st deriv of sea level be zero by pure fiat, or Gaia earth mother goddess will get an arrest warrant for not holding the 1st deriv constant, should she ever descend to earth from heaven in her birkenstocks and unshaven glory when she makes an apparition at the drumming circle or maybe the homeopathic clinic... these are the same people who claim they could never have predicted a hurricane could strike the coast so the inland people should all pay to bail them out, every couple years, over and over and over and over...
2) Geologists and scientists in general will point out that other than very rare short term local maxima/minima the 1st derivative of sea level has never been zero and probably never will be, and anyone planning on the sea level never going up or down is doomed to unhappiness.
The two groups can't make any sense of each other, mostly because only one group lives in a scientific reality.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
. . . won't that suck up a bunch of water? Can we speed up the process with a couple of nuked canals? Are there any other places on Earth that are just begging to be flooded permanently and forgot about? Now, don't get nervous, Holland, we're just taking a quick look at your dikes . . .
Now is an excellent time to brain brawl some unfeasibly wacky Wile E. Coyote engineering schemes to get rid of water.
How about if everyone drinks 5 instead of 4 liters of water each day . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
You're confusing incompressibility with thermal expansion. And even incompressibility doesn't mean perfectly stiff. It just means very stiff compared to another substance, say, air.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Density_of_ice_and_water_(en).svg
We can push far more with the global warming, the water will eventually evaporate and sea level will drop. Starting a nuclear war (because everyone screaming and running in circles do subtle changes to culture and may see it as a viable option) and getting a nuclear winter could do the trick too, in the other direction. Dealing with new reality is another option, but will be discarded as boring.
GIven that all the states at the top of the productivity and standard-of-living rankings are blue states, and all the ones at the bottom of the lists are red-states... I dont' think it's the "LIBRULS" that are messing things up.
Duh.
(the annoying mix of ignorance and arrogance that defines today's conservatives would make the conservatives of a generation ago cry)
Particularly in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Sounds like a good thing to me.
All I can say to that is ... Amen.
And I wish more people would take your rant to heart. Thank you for venting.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
It's a poorly understood fact that any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over.
Will your unwanted fact that "any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over" go "poof" if someone screams LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over?
Which came first, the LIBRUL or the unwanted fact?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Dig one giant hole, or a bunch of smaller holes, desalinate ocean water, fill holes with water until water level starts to drop, problem solved. You could also take the water to other planets but it would probably be less expensive to find frozen water in space.
That's "phase change", buddy, a totally different conversation.
I don't see a problem here. We will all drown in all the kool-aid long before rising sea levels rise. Hell because we are all going to be shorter due to AGW, we'll all die even quicker.
These "studies" are like like a Star Wars movie "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." No matter how many times these clowns are caught fudging the data, making shit up, etc they just keep coming back. No matter how many times we beat them down with Micheal Mann's hockey stick!
I guess our only home to that we get "The One" to serve us for another four years because as the Gospel says "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Hallelujah!
Beside couldn't he just couldn't walk across the water and start tapping it down if it gets to high?
Not that I understand any of this scientific stuff - I just write the computer models that the enlightened ones tell me too.
Everyone laughed when I bought beach front property in Riverside California!
LOL! Water just so happens to be the only liquid that expands both when heated and frozen.
Are you being sarcastic? Why would ice float if it wasn't changing density?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyond anyone's realistic expectations. Essentially if the only measures we take are passive, reducing emissions, and the science is right we are already dead. That's if
In either case cutting emissions is economically harmful in developed nations and likely impossible in the developing world. Either the science is right and its already to late, or the science is wrong and elevated CO2 won't do these terrible things to our planet. The focus needs to move toward active controls on the temperature and chemical make up of the oceans. Its the only way.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So, what's your plan for dealing with the well-documented and apparently natural global warming and sea level rise that's been going on for the last couple of centuries, then? I guess those communists and socialists living along the Gulf Coast and in Florida are SOL too, like that hotbed of communism and socialism in Galveston, Texas, for example. Damn hippie socialists and their crazy ideas of building beachfront cottages on a fricking sand spit and then expecting government tax dollars to build sea walls and bail them out every time a hurricane rolls through. Yeah, that couldn't end badly due to continued sea level rise.
Next up: solving plane and car crashes by ending the scourge of liberal, communist, and socialist physics.
Yeah but environmentalism in the modern age is equally a get-rich-quick scheme. Lobbyists, grants, "non-profits" raking in money, startups raking in money. Large corporations seeing new profits from things like CFLs and Solar tech. The answer to our oil, environmental, and warming problems isn't windmills and solar farms in the desert anyways. Without bothering going down that line, it's easy to see there's not enough usable land/wind/whatever to support the 7 billion of us with any combination of these technologies. To place your hope in them is to doom humanity.
If you want to claim that science is on your side, try siding with science for once. Fusion is the answer. If all the bullshit, the money, the political will, the "awareness", etc that's gone into Green Energy went straight into current Fusion research programs, we'd get there a lot faster. As it is it's going to be a close race whether we get there (practical wide-scale adoption) before we run out of oil.
That is great. Now we don't have to worry about it any more and have close to 100 years to get those people moved.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
It's ok Slashmydots, you were wrong on this one. It happens to everyone now and then. But before you hit that little submit button again, take a moment to think about how the world works, or take a quick check on wikipedia, or google it. Be better.
How about if everyone drinks 5 instead of 4 liters of water each day . . . ?
Then everyone goes pee 5 times instead of 4 times each day, with a net result of no change.
A middle school physics student can tell you water doesn't expand or contract under any conditions.
Indeed they could. And they would be wrong.
what makes water interesting is that it has unique properties of expanding.
at the bottom of this page is a curve, http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/beachdam.htm
it's funny because the page is from 2000 and has this exact same issue. "haha".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
EOM
I don't like regulations that don't accomplish anything beyond costing me time and/or money. Most of the things I have seen that claim to fight global warming fall into that category. They don't do anything to help the earth and create lots of unnecessary bureaucrats that only add to the pollution and resource drain while producing nothing.
Obviously, the most important questions are:
1. How can we use this in the Emacs vs VI debate?
2. Can this be used in the cloud vs local computing debate.
3. Where does Natalie Portman come down on this issue?
4. Can we use this to justify locking RMS and ESR in a closet with various blunt weapons and only talk to whoever walks out afterward?
5. How will this help that guy turn girls into stone?
productivity and standard-of-living rankings
Census data is infinitely more credible than any amount of carefully massaged sociological analysis. As to what is and is not messed up; people vote with their feet -- as they always have -- and they tend to abandon, at great cost and risk, the statist dominated areas you admire.
If you want to claim that science is on your side, try siding with science for once. Fusion is the answer. If all the bullshit, the money, the political will, the "awareness", etc that's gone into Green Energy went straight into current Fusion research programs, we'd get there a lot faster. As it is it's going to be a close race whether we get there (practical wide-scale adoption) before we run out of oil.
You are sorely mistaken. Solar is a far more promising solution to our problems. We have many proven methods of harnessing solar power whereas we have zero ways currently of harnessing fusion. Solar research has been producing regular technological advances while fusion has been and still is "30 years away". The sun provides way more than enough energy for our planet provided we have the technology to take advantage of it, and the way the technology has been advancing I think there is every reason to believe that it will be one of the primary solutions. Best of all, solar will be a distributed and democratizing source of power that you'll be able to put on your car, home, or even your shirt. Some regions will still benefit most from wind, geothermal, or some other source such as tidal, and maybe someday fusion will enter the mix (particularly on any interstellar craft), but that's a looooong way away compared to what we're looking for in the next 30-50 years.
Under the best emissions scenario, the expected rise is 14.2 cm by 2100; under the worst, 32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone.
Complete bullshit, pulled in whole out of somebody's ass. How many idiots are there out there that actually buy into fear-mongering crap like that?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Ever seen a Water Heater explode?
Nathan
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Shorelines have been moving location for millions of years. Many ruins of ancient costal civilizations are miles inland or out to sea today. The Earth is a costantly changing system and nature has been adapting to those changes for years.
Sea levels stopped rising in 2008 and, according to some interpretations of the data, have actually been declining ever since.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
FUN SCIENCE PROJECT! :-)
(Kids -- Get an adult to help you!
1. Find a large plastic cup that can hold water. A red SOLO cup is perfect, but any plastic cup will do. ... What happened to the cup? What happened to the water? Why?
2. Fill plastic cup with water, almost to the top.
3. Carefully (don't spill!) place the plastic cup in the freezer. Note that the water is completely contained in the cup.
4. Wait 24 hours.
5. Open the freezer
But this is so typical of the AGW skeptics in general. It does not matter at all whether what they post is true, or even makes sense. All that is required is that it raises some sort of doubt. Of course anyone who has any fucking brains at all knows that water expands, but I'll wager right now that six months down the road when a similar article comes along, this meme will be repeated.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No quadratic equations etc in the Bible. Well there is the value for PI but then they got that wrong.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Fusion thus far has been a total dead end. Christ, you invoke science, and then advocate something we can't even make produce energy even the slightest bit greater than the energy we put into it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Some evidence.
I know, I know, it's not fashionable to actually look into the facts before posting about important subjects such as these.
Affected areas with high population density should easily be able to come up with the cash to build levees high enough to survive a million years of warming.
Barack Obama on winning the nomination, June 4, 2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Unwanted facts like the undeniable scientific fact from the 60s and 70s that we were headed for another Ice Age? Fuck all the scientists smug in their theories cast as fact.
You should have gotten past middle school physics. If you had gotten to high school chemistry before dropping out of school, you would have learned about the thermal expansion of water. If you had made it to college, you might have even taken an engineering class in thermodynamics to fullfill your engineering elective. There, you would certainly learn about the different densities of water. Water is most dense at 4C. Water also expands and contracts due to pressure, but the effect is very small. You have to simplify things to teach them to middle school students. The process of high school, undergraduate education, and then graduate education, is to simplify things less and less. Do you think real world engineers make everything out of frictionless pulleys and mass-less rope? Do you really think atoms are tiny balls with tiny balls actually orbiting around them in circles? There's a reason you have to go past 6th grade to get any decent job.
We're draining the prehistoric deep underground aquafers.
Just pump the seawater back inside. :-P
We'll just have to keep growing the population at full speed, and we'll use our super efficient and cheap solar panels and our graphene salt water filters and we'll drink the ocean back down to appropriate levels.
KEEP SHOPPING AND BREEDING, HUMANS! NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Oh, I wish I had ranted that. Well done.
Climatology became political because the fossil fuel industry spends a boatload of money on public relations to make it so. If they can stall the development and adoption of carbon-neutral energy technologies for even 10 or 15 years by spreading misinfomation and confusion, it still means hundreds of billions of dollars to them, and PR firms are cheap compared to that.
I've spoken with conservatives - a couple in my own family - who've never taken any interest in any science of any kind, yet have big, loud opinions on climatology and "bad science". Their complete lack of interest and knowledge in the subject shields them from having to consider any evidence you might present, so reason is useless. To ask them how they arrived at their conclusions is to open up a boiling cauldron of nonsense and paranoia that usually boils down to all scientists belonging to some great liberal conspiracy bent on destroying the economy. Or sometimes, just a blank stare.
Being first to assess future beachfront, purchase and develop will be far more important than being first to post ,little cow.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Lets look at things mathematically instead of ideologically.
If we forgo N% of world GDP each year to offset global warming then, using the formula for compound interest we see in 100 years:
Lost GDP = GDP * N% ^ 100
Now lets assume cost of dealing with global warming in 100 years is catastrophic, like 10x current world GDP. The question is:
10x GDP = GDP * N% ^ 100 ???
We know current world GDP is about 64 trillion dollars:
640 Trillion = 64 * N% ^ 100 giving N = 1.34 %
Will it cost less than 1.34% of GDP to offset global warming? Probably not. Therefore it is not mathematically worth doing anything about it.
Feel free to check my math.
It's alright, there will always be a climate change denyer that will buy your "beach front" property.
You don't know how to think.
We'll annex Canada and tax anyone who ends a sentence with "eh?"
UNDER lords. Underlords.
sig: sauer
RABLABALBABLABLABLABLA
We certainly don't give a fuck about you or what you think.
But! But! One time I heard somebody say that liquids are "incompressible fluids" and I instantly had a complete understanding of thermodynamics! Teh Global Warmings are a hoax!
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
We'll just store all that excess water in the cloud. Everything will be fine.
Have gnu, will travel.
banking crises happen every 2 to 3 years. perhaps this is better than truly catastrophic disasters occurring less frequently. its probably not just that people dont learn, its that the entire financial system is built on a series of protections for the bankers that ultimately protect them from the burden of being responsible for their mistakes, while still allowing a healthy profit.
The Sun shines more energy on the Earth in a few hours than humans use in a whole year. I think there's plenty of solar energy to power us. I read somewhere that it would take a solar array of only 40x40 km to power the human world.
Here's news, moron, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Liberal vs. Conservative, Socialist vs. Capitalist. It does not fucking care.
Hmmm... I wonder what the honey badger's take is on all of this...
Bye, bye, Manhattan.
Fusion thus far has been a total dead end. Christ, you invoke science, and then advocate something we can't even make produce energy even the slightest bit greater than the energy we put into it.
And you berate the parent poster, yet fail to mention the significant strides that have been made in fusion research in the past two decades, making it far from a "dead end" endeavor, and the likelihood that we will, eventually, produce more energy from a nuclear fusion reaction than we pump into it.
To elaborate on just one area: while the empirical scaling of the density limit and the onset of plasma collapse in tokamak reactors has long been known (see: M. Murakami, et al. "Some observations on maximum densities in tokamak experiments", Nuclear Fusion, 16, 347, 1976; S. J. Fielding, et al. "High-density discharges with gettered torus walls in DITE", Nuclear Fusion, 17, 1382, 1977; R. S. Granetz, "Density Threshold for Magnetohydrodynamic Activity in Alcator C", Physical Review Letters, 49, 658–661, 1982; E. S. Marmar, et al., "Impurity injection experiments on the Alcator C tokamak", Nuclear Fusion, 22, 1567, 1982; M. Greenwald, et al., "A new look at density limits in tokamaks", Nuclear Fusion, 28, 2199, 1988; and M. Greenwald, "Density limits in toroidal plasmas", Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 44, R27, 2002), it wasn't until recently that a sound physics mechanism hypothesis was advanced to explain this phenomenon. In particular, Gates and Delgado-Aparicio ("Origin of tokamak density limit scalings", Physical Review Letters, 108, 165004, 2012), building upon the empirical findings of Suttrop et al. ("Tearing mode formation and radiative edge cooling prior to density limit disruptions in ASDEX upgrade", Nuclear Fusion, 37, 119, 1997) and Salzedas, et al., ("Exponentially Growing Tearing Modes in Rijnhuizen Tokamak Project Plasmas", Physical Review Letters, 88, 075002, 2002), conjectured that radiation-driven islands are the cause of the density limit, as the interior of the islands contain impurities, which radiate cooling, thereby increasing local resistivity and helical current perturbation.
Since, from all appearances, the ideas of Gates and Delgado-Aparicio are correct, steps can now be taken to counteract these instabilities before they become a problem and thus improve reactor efficiency, e.g., in the ITER currently underway in France, the Alcator C-Mod at MIT, or the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics; for example, one could adopt the processes outlined by J. P. Graves, et al. ("Control of magnetohydrodynamic stability by phase space engineering of energetic ions in tokamak plasmas", Nature Communications, 3, 624, 2012).
The fossil records show sea level as being 280 feet above where it is now. If most of the ice were to melt, that's where it would go again. It looks like most (all) of the ice is going to melt. It appears that this melting happens on human and not geologic time zone. Its interesting that the highest point in Florida above sea level is about 280 feet.
China could give a damn, the planet could be going up in flames and they will tell everyone to pack sand. So sure we can make a impact while completely destroying what little is left of our economy. China on the other hand you can bet will just keep on subsidizing prices and doing what they want until we cease to exist. (They are doing one hell of a job at it so far)
Scream global warning as much as you want, it will not change the dynamics of the problem.
This is apparently Gore's equivalent of "I did not inhale" or "it depends on your definition of 'sex'". What this amounts to is that, in order to push his political agenda, Gore has been using technically true statements intended strike fear into people. And a lot of the advocates of action on climate change are doing the same thing, like Hansen's statements about runaway greenhouse warming and the numerous pictures of burning planets and scorched earth. The reality of climate change is much less dramatic.
I don't think global warming is real, but if anyone is to be blamed, is the oil companies who constantly block any other alternative fuels such as biodiesel. They also block technological advancements which would probably at least increase fuel economy from 32 mpg to at least 100 mpg. It is a fact that oil companies run congress and washington, heck, they even put a president in charge for 8 years and the vice president was a former Haliburton CEO. It is not a conspiracy theory, when it is all over the fucking news.
You're driving to the cliff edge and the brakes aren't going to stop you in time BUT THEY DO SLOW YOU. Now, do you keep braking the car and try somthing else or do you put your foot on the accelerator and hope that your car will fly if it goes fast enough?
You're wanting to try to fly.
And moving it (or rebuilding it) free?
Beause if that land is inundated, that infrastructure which cost you to build and currently allows economic activities that bring in money (you will lose all NY tourists when it's flooded, therefore all that tourist money) will be destroyed. That's worth something.
Or is arson OK because it is destroying something that is still there afterwards: the land only.
We can always dig a bit deeper underwater and dump the rubble on the Netherlands (they could use some mountains, or at least they could reach sea level).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
And any problem can go *poof* if you scream TAXES TAXES TAXES over and over.
If pumping millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of two centuries is going to cause serious climactic changes, it is absolutely fucking irrelevant who you fucking vote for, or whether you masturbate to Vladimir Lenin or Ayn Rand.
Well, then, how about we talk about absolutely fucking relevant things instead? Such as, should we do anything about it? There's a word up there in your post that's really causing problems for us: "if".
What we need is a storage tank in geostationary orbit and a big pipe going from a platform in the sea up to it, with a huge pump on either end pushing/sucking the water up (this might not be possible without it ripping itself apart with the weight). Then a shuttle to run from the tank to a landing site on the moon where the water is pumped into a large lake.
Not cheap, but losing something like 10% of the worlds wealth (in towns and cities) is quite expensive, too.
If the Ross Ice shelf broke off Antarctica, sea level would rise 6 inches pretty much immediately (give it a week).
That would affect all ports which affects all international shipping which affects all economies.
I get a different result 2.3%, check it:
(radix of the log doesn't matter for this)
Now let's do a different one for a laugh: assume the world GDP starts a long descent and declines with 4.5007% per year (peak oil was in 2005 or so). This means world GDP in 2112 will be 0.01 x world GDP in 2012. If it costs less than your 1.34 % of GDP or my 2.33 % of GDP to combat global warming now, it costs less than 134% or 233% of world GDP then, to combat global warming. So, it's 100 times cheaper to just start solving it now rather than leaving our petroleum-industry-less grandchildren to pay the bill.
I made that huge percentage 4.5007% up to suit the calculation, BTW.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The easiest place to collect CO2 is at the exhaust pipes and smokestacks. Even easier would be to just stop burning fossil fuels. And even that I wouldn't call easy. Think of all the opposition there is, for merely trying to restrict that.
So yeah. If putting the whole atmosphere through a filter a few times sounds easy to you, we disagree.
No... it would just evaporate on the moon.
This could be the beginning of the Mars restoration project.
Nasa has said it needs lots of water to protect against space radiation as people travel through space -- huge cargo ships going to mars to replenish the 'canals' and seas... once there use solar to break down some of it into Oxygen and save the hydrogen for battery usage....
Time to start teraforming Mars! ;)
A foot of water and those idiots want to spend $15 trillion to prevent it? Someone has put LSD in their koolaid.