Global Warming

[Thorne]

3) The release of volcanoes isn't that big of a deal since it's always been like this.

I have to disagree with you on this one. True, the volcanic activity may tend to average out over time, but one very large eruption can have devastating effects. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted several years ago it blew a massive hole in the ozone layer. Scientists were shocked by this, of course, since none of them had predicted it. But they really haven't been studying the ozone layer for all that long, so nobody knows how often this happens. According to the USGS at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html -
"It injected a 20- million ton sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere to an altitude of more than 20 miles. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from man-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere. Scientists now know that the "smoke" from volcanoes, once attributed by poets to be from Vulcan's forge, is actually volcanic gas, and an important agent of global change."

When Krakatoa exploded in 1883 it sent up such a large ash cloud that it circled the globe. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa -
"In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation."

These kinds of major eruptions, though not as common as the normal eruptions happening every day, add significantly to global climate change.

[Guest 91108]

Do not forget Yellowstone is a Supervolcano that is expected to go at some unknown near time....

Eruptions of the Yellowstone volcanic system have included the two largest volcanic eruptions in North America in the past few million years; the third largest was at Long Valley in California and produced the Bishop ash bed. The biggest of the Yellowstone eruptions occurred 2.1 million years ago, depositing the Huckleberry Ridge ash bed. These eruptions left behind huge volcanic depressions called “calderas” and spread volcanic ash over large parts of North America (see map). If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...olcanoes.shtml

It is little known that lying underneath one of America's areas of outstanding natural beauty - Yellowstone Park - is one of the largest supervolcanoes in the world. Scientists have revealed that it has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years. The last eruption was 640,000 years ago... so the next is overdue.

[TomOfSweden]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) That's an assumption for which there is no real proof. Some think the European Dark Ages were called that because it was 'dark' from large amounts of ash in the sky creating shorter growing seasons, a harder life with less leisure time, and no time to do science... until the 'renaissance.'

I agree with most of the rest of your comments.

Nobody is saying that the volcanoes don't have an impact, but the more data is being collected it's impact seems to be getting less and less. Now they're down to just a few percent.

And they need more to account for the rise of temperature as we see today.

This is just one of those "dammit, the tree hugger's were right moments". At least it was for me.

[Ozme52]

Nobody is saying that the volcanoes don't have an impact, but the more data is being collected it's impact seems to be getting less and less. Now they're down to just a few percent.

And they need more to account for the rise of temperature as we see today.

This is just one of those "dammit, the tree hugger's were right moments". At least it was for me.

Oh. You misunderstood my intent or perhaps I wasn't clear... I meant that they add to global cooling due to creating clouds that shade the surface of the earth. How much is unknown because it's only been this last century that we can measure changes that may have been influenced by volcanic activity AND it's generally agreed that in terms of geologic time... the last century, has been volcanically quiet.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I still think that none of the above justifies the complancency espoused by the majority of posters here.

Global warming is a fact. We have the ability to mitigate some of its effects, but it might cost the rich nations a bit of money. So that's a non-starter.

TYWD

[Sea_Hunter]

OK, I believe the world is flat. The whole global warming thing is an absolute hoax. Those that say that no scientest has ever come out against global warming - lie. That is simply not true. Not one single computer model has ever predicted the climate accurately. When measuring devices are put in asphalt parking lots, under air conditioner exhausts, and next to BBQ pits, their results are somewhat suspect. Nobody who says climate change is man made wants to talk about the Medevil warming period, where CO2 levils were just as high as they are now. What, did the horses the knights rode use fossle fules? Does anyone bother to look at the Crustatious Period, where the global warming was at the highest, and CO2 levils peaked? Perhaps old T Rex used fossel fule instead of becoming fossel fuel? It goes on and on. Not one single "fact" presented by any climate change "scientest" has withstood testing, or review on the issue of man caused climate change. No one can show me a single expierment that proves scientifically that CO2 emmisions cause an increase in troposphereic tempiture. I suggest that before you jump on that climate change caused by man bandwagon you read the article written by a 15 yo girl on Al Gore's movie. Look under Global Warming Hoax. Her name is Kristen Barynes I believe. She absolutely trashes Gore with the facts. She demolishes the man caused global climate myth. If a 15yo student in Main can do the homework, perhaps we as adults owe it to ourselves to do the same. The biggest embarassment of this entire issue is how easily we as adults in America are being led around by the nose on this without ever, once, doing the homework ourselves and looking for the truth. We are indeed, becoming a nation of sheep.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Sea Hunter, rather than asking "whose fault is it?" we have now moved on to "can we be bothered to try to put things right, or is it a waste of time?"

[TomOfSweden]

Crustatious = http://fimbulvinter.blogsome.com/wp-...r_zoidberg.JPG

[Ozme52]

Can't really trust dr. z.

He just wants our jelly. g*

[js207]

Sea Hunter, rather than asking "whose fault is it?" we have now moved on to "can we be bothered to try to put things right, or is it a waste of time?"

Before asking about trying to "put things right", you would have to define "right". Are you going to try to impose a completely unnatural stasis, somehow negating every force of nature and ending cycles which have existed for millennia? Cancel out the known effects of humans, trying to restore your extrapolation of the previous cycles?

Right now, we know the planet's a little bit warmer than it was a few decades ago. We also know CO2 levels are up. There's a theory that the two are connected to some extent, since increased CO2 levels tend to follow increased temperatures quite closely in historical data. The only thing we know for sure, however, is that increased CO2 levels are not entirely to blame (since other, entirely natural, factors are known to have made some contribution there, both on the Earth and on Mars, a planet not yet noted for heavy industry).

There are some sensible steps we could and should take, like phasing out fossil fuel electricity generation and trying to reduce road congestion - but blowing trillions on quick-fix political "solutions" without properly considering reality or defining a sensible goal is counterproductive at best. If you're using sea levels to justify this expenditure, just tell me: how many trillion dollars are you prepared to pay per inch of sea level? How much do you think installing an extra inch of sea wall where necessary, given almost an entire century in which to do so, would cost? Now compare those two figures, and think about the implications.

[Ozme52]

I just remembered...

How far is Harlech Castle from the ocean? Seemed a mighty long way when I visited in 1983. I remember a painting of it from long before, waves crashing up on the cliffs below.

The ocean has been higher. We've moved onto lands that were previously submerged and now we're going to pay for it... and I doubt that a) we can do anything about it and b) that we were the cause of previously higher sea levels nor are the cause of future sea levels.

TW, the issue is that this is about politics and power. Not about saving the world from... nature.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Oh well - if money's the problem, that's an end to it!

Or if it's politics and power, then let the people without a vote die.

Mind you, Holland managed to reclaim hundreds of square miles from the sea. They could afford to do that. They decided it was a good idea, allocated funds to the project(s) and went ahead and did it. Now they stand to lose it because a small but vocal group of people are in denial. What concern are Holland's problems to them?

Global warming IS happening, and it IS possible to mitigate the effects. I can't say if we can do enough, but if we do nothing they'll be worse than they have to be.

But we don't have to build sea walls everywhere, we can - and will have to - move inland. Massive population shifts will have far-reaching consequences and no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, everyone, everywhere will be affected to some degree or other. So a good plan would be to work out where displaced people should go and how to get them there without wars and without causing greater hardship.

Sounds like a job for a good politician with lots of money to me.

TYWD

[Guest 91108]

The smart thing is to inform the population. That is not being done.
Then.. those in the effected areas should start to move themselves.
The .gov isn't going to move such mass amounts of people prior to the event.
They have to move themselves just as in any other hurricane or similiar natural disaster/situation.

And like they have always done in the past .. They ( being the government) comes in afterwards to do what they can if anything.
It's how they have shown us they wish to work in past and how I expect them to now.
I do not see where any .gov is going to allocate moving for the masses to such areas. They are not going to fund it. It's unrealistic to expect them to.

I think such talk is more time and bandwidth wasting than doing anything about it.

People's survival has been and is now .. probably willl always be in the hands of the populace at large.

To remain apathetic to the situation is to spell your own woes in future.
It's that simple.

All the talk of the World's leading countries should this and that is pure BS.
What of individual responsiblity?
What of individual taking initiative to protect themselves and family?
I take it for mine.
I expect others to do the same. Again it's all very simple.
We are making things seem much harder than they are.
There will be loss and casualites and such, kinda silly it seems to me to think it can be prevented.. Mainly because we are not nearly intelligent enough to see the obvious. This thread shows that in the kinds of things being put forward.
ie .. Let the nanny .gov protect us.. Do they really? Look at the news media for your answers.

I've said it I don't know how many times on this forum and others.
Humanity has not progressed to a level where it will think ahead enough to out maneuver greed and and ego/power stroking self importance to do such things.
If you don't beleive that.. cut on the TV and watch an hour news cast any day of the week.
you'll only see maybe a few minutes if that much devoted to any one single individual's attempt at being a noble creature.
We as a whole are not.
It is a sad commentary / opinion.
Yes, it is just an opinion .. but it is one that is very evident.

Makes me wonder who is truly in denial ...

What it is .. is time for people to take responsiblity for themselves in all ways and stop wanting/expecting and waiting on someone else to do it for them.

[Thorne]

those in the effected areas should start to move themselves.
The .gov isn't going to move such mass amounts of people prior to the event.
They have to move themselves just as in any other hurricane or similiar natural disaster/situation.
...
All the talk of the World's leading countries should this and that is pure BS.
What of individual responsiblity?
What of individual taking initiative to protect themselves and family?
...
What it is .. is time for people to take responsiblity for themselves in all ways and stop wanting/expecting and waiting on someone else to do it for them.

I have to agree with you here. How many people have been killed in hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters because the were too stubborn (or too stupid) to evacuate when told that they should? And how many more have been killed because they were never informed of a disaster on the horizon?

But asking people to accept individual responsibility? What a bizarre concept! So politically incorrect of you! It's much easier to blame your problems on the government, or on the industrialized nations, or on any other scapegoat you can find.

Government's job is to maintain the status quo, keep the peace. Moving large segments of population around goes against the grain. How can you control a population on the move? Don't rely on them to help you!

In my opinion, if you think you can do something to reduce the effects of global warming, and if you have the desire and the resources to do it, then by all means, go ahead. But do it because you think it's right and necessary, not because some politician or whack-job ecoterrorist tells you to do it. Meanwhile, I'll keep building my fortress of solitude, somewhere in the mountains.

[Guest 91108]

Smiles a lot.

Oh well .. I live to be politically incorrect. I get all warm and fuzzy when I rub those who expect things the wrong way.

[Thorne]

Smiles a lot.

Oh well .. I live to be politically incorrect. I get all warm and fuzzy when I rub those who expect things the wrong way.

Funny! I get all warm and fuzzy when my wife rubs things the RIGHT way!

[ThisYouWillDo]

I don't think we're talking about individuals here, nor a few thousand people in the path of a huricane; not even a few million in a city that's facing destruction by earthquakes. We're talking about 5 .. 10 .. 15 percent of many different nations' populations moving en masse to the nearest place of refuge. Uncountable numbers. Where are they going to go? There will be hordes moving back from rising sea levels, and masses moving away from newly arid farmlands. Converging on inland cities to look for food and shelter, which, of course, they won't get without a fight. Then they will spread further inland to find somewhere else to settle. They will be resisted by people who are already very comfortable in their retreats in the mountains - NIMBY's if you like ... the "we don't want no intruders around here" brigade ... people who justify their selfishness by calling it self preservation ... people who would glady take aid if they needed it themselves ... who would steal if if they had to, and let the original owner go hang.

How well did the wealthiest nation in the world cope with Hurricane Katrina? Even with the massive aid provided by almost every other country in the world. I think it's generally accepted that it didn't cope at all well. It couldn't even distribute relief properly. (How dare the west criticise the Africans in future!) Inadequate preparations were made by the people responsible. Now who would that be? The Government? The City authorities? Individual people?

That's when politicians would earn their bread, by thinking ahead and planning for disaster. Building new inland towns, not holding camps. The days are long past when a government's job was just to keep the peace and to protect the land from invasion by foreign princes. Now they have a greater duty: to the global village they belong to.

Governments that neglect to make adequate provision for the population movements they face are going to have to deal with the breakdown of law and order that will be certain to follow any significant land loss, whether to the sea or to the weather. They can anticipate likely effects. If your government is pretending nothing's going to happen, then you should kick it up the arse, or take personal blame (same thing as personal responsibility) for the loss of life that will surely follow.

To me, an eco-terrorist would be someone who causes innocent deaths by wilfully neglecting to provide necessary protection when he could have. Who do you have in mind, Thorne? I would suggest the World leaders that are DUCKING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES because they are to concerned about their own vested interest. I can think of two major nations: USA and Canada who are clearly neglecting their duty to their population, not by showing that global warming isn't happening, but by saying, if the poor nations don't do more than us to stop polluting, then we shall do nothing at all. Luckily for them, their populations don't seem to care much.

TYWD

[Thorne]

The definition of ECO-TERRORIST I was thinking of is one who attempts to panic people by proclaiming the end of the world as we know it due to ecological disasters, in this case a disaster supposedly caused by mankind.

For as long as mankind has had language there have been those doom criers who predict the end of civilization, or the end of life as we know it, or the end of the world. Civilization, life and the world are still here. But they have changed, and ultimately that is what those "prophets" feared: change. The world is going to change, whether we like it or not. To survive, an individual, a nation, must adapt. Trying to hold it back will only lead to extinction, for the individual, the nation and the human race.
*****
Something I just thought of, though. It would be interesting to find out whether any individuals or corporations are trying to acquire large tracts of land in areas of the world which are currently not usable as farm land. As the world grows warmer the best farm land will move north and south, farther from the equator.

[Bonnie]

Nobody who says climate change is man made wants to talk about the Medieval warming period, where CO2 levels were just as high as they are now. What, did the horses the knights rode use fossil fuels?

This is a good point. Plus, I reviewed while back an article on measurements of the temperature deviations on Mars- turns out lately the temperature on Mars has risen with three degrees also. Global warming is a result of the solar activity more than anything else, yet we should still be concerned about pollution, not because of the ice melting but because of all of the health problems it brings to us.

Climate change is inevitable. I hope it's a kind that we will be able to adapt to.

But, if I ever get trapped in a climate disaster, I hope I am in a cave with my Master. Him and I can keep the fire and procreation going for the whole mankind....lol ;-)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne: The definition of ECO-TERRORIST I was thinking of is one who attempts to panic people by proclaiming the end of the world as we know it due to ecological disasters, in this case a disaster supposedly caused by mankind.

OK - I can accept that: I'll settle for environmental terrorism to cover my concept.

Thorne: For as long as mankind has had language there have been those doom criers who predict the end of civilization, or the end of life as we know it, or the end of the world. Civilization, life and the world are still here.

This is true: Look at Christianity: Armageddon hasn't yet happened, and who's to say it ever will? But Cassandra also springs to mind. Her predictions were always right, but no-one ever believed them.

Or to be more realistic, it's possible that those forecasting global extinction due to a collision with an asteroid/comet/giant meteorite will be proved correct before global warming has a chance to affect us. Or that a rampant epidemic will wipe out half the population. Or a psychopathic terrorist will palnt dirty nuclear bombs in every capital city in the world. The thing is, all these predicitions are likely to happen (OK, maybe not the terrorist bombing EVERY capital). Do these possibilities - no, probabilities - justify doing nothing about global warming?

Thorne: But they have changed, and ultimately that is what those "prophets" feared: change. The world is going to change, whether we like it or not. To survive, an individual, a nation, must adapt. Trying to hold it back will only lead to extinction, for the individual, the nation and the human race. (Emphasis supplied.)

Precisely! And wouldn't it be wiser for everyone to combine resources when taking on something as massive as climate change? An individual nation can do little. An individual person can probably do nothing except trust to luck. If he happens to live in a place that will not be too badly affected, he will be luckier than most.

Thorne: Something I just thought of, though. It would be interesting to find out whether any individuals or corporations are trying to acquire large tracts of land in areas of the world which are currently not usable as farm land. As the world grows warmer the best farm land will move north and south, farther from the equator.

That would be interesting to find out! Wouldn't it be even more interesting if any of them turned out to be publicly suggesting there is no need to fear global warming?


TYWD

PS - I know Cassandra was mythological, but the point is, her warnings were right but were disbelieved.

[Thorne]

And wouldn't it be wiser for everyone to combine resources when taking on something as massive as climate change? An individual nation can do little. An individual person can probably do nothing except trust to luck. If he happens to live in a place that will not be too badly affected, he will be luckier than most.

Yes, it would be wiser. Would it be likely? You can't get most nations to agree that the sky is blue or that water is wet. But who knows, maybe after the NEXT War To End All Wars.

That would be interesting to find out! Wouldn't it be even more interesting if any of them turned out to be publicly suggesting there is no need to fear global warming?

LOL! I can assure you, I'm not one of them!

PS - I know Cassandra was mythological, but the point is, her warnings were right but were disbelieved.

And, like most prophets, her warnings and pronouncements were cryptic. If memory serves (too lazy to look it up) she was asked by the Persian king about the outcome of an upcoming battle. She dutifully informed him that the battle would result in the fall of a kingdom. He naturally assumed it was the enemy kingdom which would fall. Silly king!

[js207]

Mind you, Holland managed to reclaim hundreds of square miles from the sea. They could afford to do that. They decided it was a good idea, allocated funds to the project(s) and went ahead and did it. Now they stand to lose it because a small but vocal group of people are in denial. What concern are Holland's problems to them?

Nope - at most, they stand to need to build an extra foot (OK, in the worst case scenario, it could be nearly two feet) or so of wall over the course of the next century. If they ask nicely, I'll even donate them a brick to help. Do you really think they'll abandon the entire country rather than raise the wall a foot?!

Global warming IS happening, and it IS possible to mitigate the effects. I can't say if we can do enough, but if we do nothing they'll be worse than they have to be.

The question is how much to do - how much to spend for how much gain. Supposing I had a device which would cut the rise by 10% (i.e. around an inch) - how much money would that be worth? A billion? A hundred billion? More?

But we don't have to build sea walls everywhere, we can - and will have to - move inland. Massive population shifts will have far-reaching consequences and no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, everyone, everywhere will be affected to some degree or other. So a good plan would be to work out where displaced people should go and how to get them there without wars and without causing greater hardship.

Sounds like a job for a good politician with lots of money to me.

TYWD

Just how much "massive population" do you think lives within a foot of sea level at present, in circumstances which somehow preclude any option other than abandoning that location - over a timescale in which most current houses will be replaced anyway? I know my own house is well above sea level, and hardly alone in that - and even if 10% of the population will have to escape the extra foot of water, spread over that century it's a trivial 0.1% annual shift - completely dwarfed by routing population shifts anyway!

[ThisYouWillDo]

Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.

I acknowledge, and as it has been asserted so many times already on this thread, global warming is probably a natural phenomenon, and I agree that about 125,000 years ago the planet underwent a similar warming process to the present warm period (which started about 10,000 years ago). That period was warmer than this one has reached by a degree or so.

These warm/cold cycles are surprisingly regular and it's obvious that there's nothing we can do to stop it happening again if it's going to - and, with the greatest possible respect to young Ms Kristen Barynes, it is. But we should use our intelligence rather than our stubborness to deal with the situation. Last time, sea levels are supposed to have risen by between 4 and 6 metres and, according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)." Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for. Even that will cause the Dutch (and the rest of the world) significant problems which must be planned for. The alternative is international conflict, and everyone will lose if that happens.

So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

[Thorne]

Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday!

Hate to tell you this, TYWD, but Hollands sea wall is generally on the WEST side of the country. They would get plenty of morning sun. Sunset, on the other hand, would tend to come rather early.

according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.

Then we don't have anything to worry about. The Mayan calender says that the world will end in the year 2012, less than five years from now.

On a more serious note, though, there's been some talk here about the costs of mitigating the rising sea levels, such as building sea walls. But aside from the financial costs involved, which I agree would be prohibitive, the energy costs would do even more damage. All those construction materials which will have to be manufactured, then transported, and all the tools which will have to be built to construct these structures, will all add to the problem, don't you think?

[Guest 91108]

...
Then we don't have anything to worry about. The Mayan calender says that the world will end in the year 2012, less than five years from now.
...

hrm food for thought.

Actually 2012 is more representative of the end of a time period that was within their understanding .. not the end of the world but the end of a cycle of time.
2012 is also when we will begin to pass through the galactic spiral as a planetary system. They expect all kinds of "side effects" from that.

2012 is theorized to be the end of many changes that will be the start of that "new time period" ( a Golden Age).
see http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/goldenage.htm

[Thorne]

hrm food for thought.

Actually 2012 is more representative of the end of a time period that was within their understanding .. not the end of the world but the end of a cycle of time.
2012 is also when we will begin to pass through the galactic spiral as a planetary system. They expect all kinds of "side effects" from that.

2012 is theorized to be the end of many changes that will be the start of that "new time period" ( a Golden Age).
see http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/goldenage.htm

Yes, I'm familiar with the concepts and it's mostly a matter of interpretation. There are no Mayan left to ask, are there? My own take is that the Mayan who was doing the calculations died before training his replacement.

[js207]

Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Nope. Read again. It's the cost of delaying the rise by a trivial amount which I think is prohibitive, compared to the cost of dealing with a rise in a rational way.

Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.

It's not the cost of a few inches of brick where needed which is prohibitive, it's the economic dislocation an enlarged Kyoto would require to make a trivial different to sea level which is. You say the Dutch already have 23 foot sea walls; I can hardly imagine they'd balk at making that 24 or 25 feet in the year 2100. Remember, according to the IPCC, that 'extra foot or two' is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the year 2100.

according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)."

Where on earth did they get that figure, and over what timescale? Perhaps extrapolating the IPCC worst case scenario into the year 3000 would give that kind of rise, but that's just silly.

Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

Correct that to the actual worst case scenario for the year 2100, 2 feet higher instead of 43, and your scenario becomes very different. They'll probably be able to find the necessary two feet of bricks, meaning they lose no land at all and nobody is displaced. End of problem.

OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.

Any reason even to take those figures seriously, when they are so far different from the IPCC consensus that's supposed to be the best available? You say they are claiming the "best we can hope for" is 4-5 times worse than the "worst case scenario" assembled by the world's experts in the subject?

So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

Looking at this, I'm still convinced that developing sensible measures to deal with the extra foot or so of water over the course of this century is the rational thing to do. Forget "political agreement" - what on earth is that supposed to achieve? The best they've managed so far is a scheme to make a trivial difference at astronomical cost, without the slightest attempt to deal with the sea level rise which would happen anyway!

The Dutch will, in the worst case, need to upgrade their 23 foot walls into 25 foot walls. That doesn't need international anything or the involvement of a single politician, just some more bricks and cement. Meanwhile, your preferred strategy has delivered an idea which might reduce that to a 24 foot 11 and a bit inch wall in the year 2100, at a cost of trillions of dollars. I know which horse I'm backing there.

[Ozme52]

Yes, I'm familiar with the concepts and it's mostly a matter of interpretation. There are no Mayan left to ask, are there? My own take is that the Mayan who was doing the calculations died before training his replacement.

The Mayan calendar is very complex because it was important to them to know and understand a tremendous number of cyclic events. Their calendar 'starts' and 'ends' at a confluence of all those cycles.

My cut at it is they figured why do "page" 2 if "page" 1 is exactly the same.

If it mattered to us enough, we would have a seven year calendar... where the date and day matched. Or a lunar calendar that was 33-34 years long, matchng a date to a particular phase of the moon, or a 210+/- year calendar matching date-day-and lunar phases... But those things don't matter to us, so we have a one year calendar.

Here's a great wikipedia explanation.

BTW, the source of the end of the world theory is a New Age concept... If someone were to offer it today for the first time and you'd label it cultist. From the wikipedia article: "The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar forms the basis for a New Age belief, first forecast by José Argüelles, that a cataclysm will take place on or about 21 December 2012."



All that aside...

[Ozme52]

Define 'sensible measures'.

After all, what is sensible for Holland may not be sensible for Tibet or Mongolia or Switzerland.

If they get none of the advantages why should they want to pay any of the costs when their money might be better spent on other endeavors.

There is nothing wrong with the sea levels rising save that it impacts how and where humans will live.

If TWYD were 100% altruistic in his outlook (as he wishes all of us were...) he would be happy to let the sea rise and watch the new niches fill with new species taking advantage of new resources. It's very selfish to deny them opportunities by trying to maintain the status quo just to alleviate a little human suffering.

(Obviously I'm being fascetious... just amused that the pro-ecology stance has changed to a 'save the human habitat' stance.)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Bloody hell! I'm getting you all riled, aren't I! You have consciences?

Ok - I can only deal with you all one by one, and some responses might have to be deferred.

Ozme52: Define 'sensible measures'.

After all, what is sensible for Holland may not be sensible for Tibet or Mongolia or Switzerland.

If they get none of the advantages why should they want to pay any of the costs when their money might be better spent on other endeavors.

There is nothing wrong with the sea levels rising save that it impacts how and where humans will live.

If TWYD were 100% altruistic in his outlook (as he wishes all of us were...) he would be happy to let the sea rise and watch the new niches fill with new species taking advantage of new resources. It's very selfish to deny them opportunities by trying to maintain the status quo just to alleviate a little human suffering.

(Obviously I'm being fascetious... just amused that the pro-ecology stance has changed to a 'save the human habitat' stance.)

Of course different nations will need to take different measures. In all probablility, inland contries will be faced with an influx of people from the "old" coasts. Should they receive them into their country as citizens, or put them in transit camps until somewhere else is found for them (or they die of disease), or should they just shoot them as their heads appear over the hills?

Sensible measure, then, are chosing between maintaining sea defences or migrating large populations for one country, and maintaining armed defences or accomodating large influxes of people in another country. Sensible measures include international co-operation on a significant scale. Sensible measures include a choice of Peace over War. That means the strongest nations taking part rather than leaving the weak to cope by carrying the whole burden themselves. I used the phrase "I'm alright, Jack" earlier in this thread. It's a badge of shame, but USA and Canada seem to wear it with pride.

I'll treat your faseciousness with the contempt it deserves, but I would point out that I am prepared to change my position publicly, as I have already done earlier in this thread: openly and honestly. However, I fail to see why wanting to save the human habitat is different from being pro-ecology. I don't recall ever saying that humanity must sacrifice its own existence for the benefit of other species, although I might have advocated that humanity make some sacrifices for their benefit.

----------------

js207:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Nope. Read again. It's the cost of delaying the rise by a trivial amount which I think is prohibitive, compared to the cost of dealing with a rise in a rational way.


Quote:
Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.

It's not the cost of a few inches of brick where needed which is prohibitive, it's the economic dislocation an enlarged Kyoto would require to make a trivial different to sea level which is. You say the Dutch already have 23 foot sea walls; I can hardly imagine they'd balk at making that 24 or 25 feet in the year 2100. Remember, according to the IPCC, that 'extra foot or two' is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the year 2100.


Quote:
according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)."

Where on earth did they get that figure, and over what timescale? Perhaps extrapolating the IPCC worst case scenario into the year 3000 would give that kind of rise, but that's just silly.


Quote:
Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

Correct that to the actual worst case scenario for the year 2100, 2 feet higher instead of 43, and your scenario becomes very different. They'll probably be able to find the necessary two feet of bricks, meaning they lose no land at all and nobody is displaced. End of problem.


Quote:
OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.

Any reason even to take those figures seriously, when they are so far different from the IPCC consensus that's supposed to be the best available? You say they are claiming the "best we can hope for" is 4-5 times worse than the "worst case scenario" assembled by the world's experts in the subject?


Quote:
So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

Looking at this, I'm still convinced that developing sensible measures to deal with the extra foot or so of water over the course of this century is the rational thing to do. Forget "political agreement" - what on earth is that supposed to achieve? The best they've managed so far is a scheme to make a trivial difference at astronomical cost, without the slightest attempt to deal with the sea level rise which would happen anyway!

The Dutch will, in the worst case, need to upgrade their 23 foot walls into 25 foot walls. That doesn't need international anything or the involvement of a single politician, just some more bricks and cement. Meanwhile, your preferred strategy has delivered an idea which might reduce that to a 24 foot 11 and a bit inch wall in the year 2100, at a cost of trillions of dollars. I know which horse I'm backing there.

The first thing to do is to correct your misconception that the Dutch have 23 foot sea walls already. The truth is, I don't know how high those walls are right now, but 23 feet is a helluva wall. Besides, I was being disingenuous by suggesting that a 40-50 fooot wall would be needed at any time. After all, it doesn't really matter how far below sea level a city is, if the sea walls can contain the sea in all weathers. It is enough to build walls high enough and strong enough to hold back the North Sea (which has very powerful storms for a large part of the year, and mountainous waves comparable to all but the largest ocean waves). So the sea walls will only have to be as high as the highest waves after the sea level has risen to the greatest height Dutch technology can stretch to in order to contain the sea. That WILL be high, and that WILL be strong. Therefore, it WILL be expensive, and the Dutch could well be forgiven for deciding to move back inland instead ... to where? Remember, I pointed out that 1/8th of Holland lies below sea level. Over half the country lies at less than 3 feet above sea level, and the remainder's not much higher.



Strangely, Kyoto seems to be prohibitive to the most wealthy nation there is, but not to poorer ones. A nation that is already noted for its frugality in its foreign aid. A nation that seems to have adopted an nineteenth century attitude of "glorious isolationism" to run its twenty-first century international relations - where every nation is left to its own devices unless US interests are prejudiced. (Actually, you'd better know now that it isn't glorious, as Britain found out to its cost.)

As for where the American University got its figures from, how am I to know? Reliable sources I'm sure. I quoted them because I thought you'd trust figures presented by an American Institution. However, I would again confess that you have uncovered another little misdirection on my part. The potential sea rise is over the entire warm period that we have just entered. I have no idea how long it will last - 10-20,000 years? More? Less? Anyway, I suspect the changes will accelerate as we reach the peak of warmth. The last warm period produced sea level changes of a similar magnitude.

The next confession is not to a misdirection, but to an error. By 2100 sea levels are predicted to rise by 0.4 metres (16 inches) at best, not the 8 or 9 feet I claimed (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/dutch-sea.htm). The mistake was mine; I don't know how I reached that figure and I apologise. But that's still a significant rise, and you cannot just dismiss the situation as "no problem" - it's a severe problem. It's just a problem you don't want to know about. I suspect it will be enough to cause huge population shifts if it isn't managed properly; or maybe that's how it will be managed. "Managed" being the key word. I trust there will be enough co-operation within the EU to allow that to happen.



I agree that, by correcting my 2100 figures the situation seems less severe, but, really, it isn't. First, Holland isn't the only low-lying country in the world. What happens to Holland will happen to every costal region, Canadian and American ones included. And those places aren't nearly as well prepared as the Dutch already are. I suppose the USA thinks, well, we've got plenty of land, we can afford to lose some. And so can the Canadians, our near neighbours. And it won't be hard to keep the Mexicans out (oh really?). So it's a problem we can contain: so no problem at all!

Political agreement is meant to do precisely what it says. Mind you, agreement is only possible if the parties are willing to reach an agreement. So far, the majority of countries in the world have reached an agreement, including, now, Australia (welcome to the club, Bruce). America is staying out for reasons of self-interest alone (I've no idea what Canada's reasons are, unless it's just copying USA). The USA only attends the conference to maintain face, and it only consented to participate in trying to reach an agreement what the next stages will be so that its own conference on climate change later this year won't be boycotted.


Oh - and referring back to an earlier post (not that it matters anymore), I would mention here that he first house I attempted to buy was well over 100 years old - and that was 35 years ago. The same house is still lived in and is likely to remain so for at least another 50 years. 100+ year old houses are not uncommon over here. What time scale did you have in mind for housing stock to be turned over?

Thorne: Hate to tell you this, TYWD, but Hollands sea wall is generally on the WEST side of the country. They would get plenty of morning sun. Sunset, on the other hand, would tend to come rather early.

You are right, of course. But that comment was made humorously. And as you will realise from the comments above, there never would have been a wall that high anyway.

Do you analyse all jokes the same way?

TYWD