Arctic ice melting continues

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

The commercial airliner is going there anyway.


-

Why drive OR car pool when the bus is going there anyway?

As for airliners, I would hope you take the Greyhound Bus instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The commercial airliner is going there anyway.


-

Why drive OR car pool when the bus is going there anyway?

As for airliners, I would hope you take the Greyhound Bus instead.

You aren't flying out of necessity. Isn't this the same argument you used agaist SUV owners?


-

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The commercial airliner is going there anyway.


-

Why drive OR car pool when the bus is going there anyway?

As for airliners, I would hope you take the Greyhound Bus instead.

You aren't flying out of necessity. Isn't this the same argument you used agaist SUV owners?


-

Not your call, and no

If that worries you, take a look at this:
online.wsj.com/article/SB112812267933157321.html?mod=most_viewed_day

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The commercial airliner is going there anyway.


-

Why drive OR car pool when the bus is going there anyway?

As for airliners, I would hope you take the Greyhound Bus instead.

You aren't flying out of necessity. Isn't this the same argument you used agaist SUV owners?


-

Not your call, and no

If that worries you, take a look at this:
online.wsj.com/article/SB112812267933157321.html?mod=most_viewed_day

Requires a subsciption.

Please restate your problem with SUV owners and how your flying is different.

-

[mikkey 0]

Quote

>Since the ice caps on Mars are also receding, and since there are no
>human-caused emissions on Mars, it's kind of hard to blame the arctic ice
>melt solely on humans...

So the question becomes -

When the solar flux drops again (which is always does) will the anti-climate-change people go back to claiming that there's no such thing as global warming?

The CO2 content of the atmosphere has a huge effect on how much heat is retained. We're gradually increasing it. That means, over time, average temps will increase. Since this is actually happening as predicted, anti-climate-change people are changing their tune from "there's no such thing as climate change" to "maybe it's not 100% human caused" and the more recent "maybe it's a good thing that everything is melting! Did you idiot environmentalists ever think of THAT?" Since that combines both self-righteousness and a chance to bash someone, it's becoming more popular.

Bill,
Are you denying that we had cyclic “warm” periods before? You mention CO2 – so what about volcanic activity that releases enormous amount of CO2?

I think no one is denying that human activity is contributing to global warming – the issue is how much and how much you can “decrease” global warming with e.g. Kyoto. There is quite a lot of scientific evidence that a) the human factor is not that big b) that we will not able to “stop” global warming or decrease it more then marginally except going back to stone age societies….

This does not mean we should not look at replacing gas with bio-fuels, alternative energy etc. – there are good reasons for that – especially the problem that we will run out of fossil fuels soon if we continue using more and more.

I have also an issue with focussing on “western” countries alone. The biggest problem in regard to fossil fuels are India and China who a) have a huge increase of consumption b) terrible environmentally records (e.g. pump poison straight into the atmosphere and water). Those countries (and other developing countries in the third world) are being treated very “lightly” under Kyoto.

I still think there is too much “religious” believes in the “green” movement and not enough rational thinking. It’s the same like certain politicians mix religion and politics…

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,132]

>Are you denying that we had cyclic “warm” periods before?

Not at all. The climate has been swinging back and forth for millions of years. We know from ice cores that changing levels of CO2 are associated with climate change - but ordinarily significant changes in CO2 concentration (and resulting warming) happen over thousands of years. We are forcing such changes in hundreds (and now in dozens) of years.

>You mention CO2 – so what about volcanic activity that releases enormous
>amount of CO2?

Volcanic activity definitely releases CO2, and that affects global climate. We release far more CO2 every year than even a massive volcanic eruption, and we do it continuously. Volcanoes have a secondary effect as well - they put aerosols and dust high into the atmosphere, which tends to counteract the warming trend caused by their CO2 release. Burning fossil fuels does not do this. Thus, even though the Pinatubo eruption put billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, the climate cooled slightly for a few years after its eruption.

Some numbers:
Volcanic CO2 release, average year: 130 million tons
Anthropogenic release, 2001: 6.1 billion tons

> There is quite a lot of scientific evidence that a) the human factor is
> not that big . . .

Depends on what "that big" is. If you look at total sinks and sources, you're correct - we're only about 3% of the total CO2 emission worldwide. If we were part of a cycle (i.e. if we were using fossil fuels at the same rate they were being made) then it would be no issue - the carbon would be reabsorbed as fast as it was made. However, we are now overwhelming the natural systems that reabsorb CO2; this is clear from how fast the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is rising. If we emitted about half as much as we were now, the ecosystem would most likely be able to absorb the excess CO2.

> b) that we will not able to “stop” global warming or decrease it more
>then marginally except going back to stone age societies….

I am now carbon-neutral; my direct and first level indirect usages of fossil fuels (driving, skydiving, air travel) are counteracted by how much power I generate via my solar system. (Also by using E50 instead of pure gas, using a hybrid, biking to work etc.) I'm not living in a stone age society. It can be done if we want to do it. The money from two fewer wars could cut our CO2 emission levels in half with some pretty simple (and currently existing) technologies. It's all a question of what's more important to us.

>I have also an issue with focussing on “western” countries alone.
>The biggest problem in regard to fossil fuels are India and China . . .

Oil usage:

US: 19.1 million barrels a day
China: 4.5 million barrels a day
India: 2.1 million barrels a day

(2001-2002 numbers)

We use more than twice what India and China _combined_ use.

>a) have a huge increase of consumption . . .

No argument there. But they are still using less than a quarter of what China uses. When they are using 20 million barrels a day I would agree that they should put as much effort into CO2 emissions as we do. Until then, asking them to put 25% of the effort into it that we do would be fair and equitable.

>b) terrible environmentally records (e.g. pump poison straight into
>the atmosphere and water).

Also agreed. But Kyoto was a CO2 reduction plan, not a pollution reduction plan. Those are two very different things. The cleanest coal plant in the world still puts out exactly as much CO2 as a dirty coal plant (even a little more in some cases.)

>Those countries (and other developing countries in the third world)
>are being treated very “lightly” under Kyoto.

So propose a different one. Kyoto is just one plan. I would have no problem with an administration that said "we think Kyoto sucks, but we will support this plan that would get the same results and share the burden more equally." Instead the response has been "there's really no reason to worry" - and that is a very scary attitude.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

I continue to believe that driving an SUV single occupancy into downtown Chicago or NYC in rush hour is anti-social in the extreme and should be priced out.

Hmm...overall this would help to reduce consumption and emissions. Raise the cost so that only the top earners can afford to be environmentally hypocritcal.

Reminds me of two things:

1. President Bush Sr. asking the American public to conserve gas during the buildup in the Gulf during Desert Shield. He said this while fishing from a boat that gets about 1 to 2 miles per gallon.

2. John Kerry bitching about SUV's while owning a Gulfstream.

FallRate

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The commercial airliner is going there anyway.


-

Why drive OR car pool when the bus is going there anyway?

As for airliners, I would hope you take the Greyhound Bus instead.

You aren't flying out of necessity. Isn't this the same argument you used agaist SUV owners?


-

Not your call, and no

If that worries you, take a look at this:
online.wsj.com/article/SB112812267933157321.html?mod=most_viewed_day

Requires a subsciption.

Please restate your problem with SUV owners and how your flying is different.

-

The article was about business CEOs flying to Florida to play a round of golf (and not doing any business while about it), in the company jet at company expense and the company taking it as a tax deduction.

Memory getting bad?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The article was about business CEOs flying to Florida to play a round of golf (and not doing any business while about it), in the company jet at company expense and the company taking it as a tax deduction.

So if they do it, it's OK if you do too. I thought you despised people like that.

Quote

Memory getting bad?

Just too lazy to look it up.


-

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

The article was about business CEOs flying to Florida to play a round of golf (and not doing any business while about it), in the company jet at company expense and the company taking it as a tax deduction.

So if they do it, it's OK if you do too. I thought you despised people like that.

Quote

Memory getting bad?

Just too lazy to look it up.


-

Are you suggesting I fly anywhere at anyone else's expense and charge it as a tax deduction?


What exactly do you think I do that is equivalent to commuting, solo, 25 miles from the suburbs to the center of Chicago in a Lincoln Navigator like my (attorney) neighbor does? The farthest his SUV has ever been off road is into the parking lot at his country club.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The article was about business CEOs flying to Florida to play a round of golf (and not doing any business while about it), in the company jet at company expense and the company taking it as a tax deduction.

So if they do it, it's OK if you do too. I thought you despised people like that.

Quote

Memory getting bad?

Just too lazy to look it up.


-

Are you suggesting I fly anywhere at anyone else's expense and charge it as a tax deduction?


What exactly do you think I do that is equivalent to commuting, solo, 25 miles from the suburbs to the center of Chicago in a Lincoln Navigator like my (attorney) neighbor does? The farthest his SUV has ever been off road is into the parking lot at his country club.

I don't care if you fly your plane. I'm sure you derive great pleasure by doing so. Just don't criticize someone who gets pleasure out of their choice of vehicle.


-

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The article was about business CEOs flying to Florida to play a round of golf (and not doing any business while about it), in the company jet at company expense and the company taking it as a tax deduction.

So if they do it, it's OK if you do too. I thought you despised people like that.

Quote

Memory getting bad?

Just too lazy to look it up.


-

Are you suggesting I fly anywhere at anyone else's expense and charge it as a tax deduction?


What exactly do you think I do that is equivalent to commuting, solo, 25 miles from the suburbs to the center of Chicago in a Lincoln Navigator like my (attorney) neighbor does? The farthest his SUV has ever been off road is into the parking lot at his country club.

I don't care if you fly your plane. I'm sure you derive great pleasure by doing so. Just don't criticize someone who gets pleasure out of their choice of vehicle.


-

What pleasure does one get driving an oversized vehicle through crowded city streets?

Last summer I rented a car in Santa Fe, NM. I reserved a subcompact. When I got there all they had available was a Ford Expedition. Dreadful experience.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Not at all. The climate has been swinging back and forth for millions of years. We know from ice cores that changing levels of CO2 are associated with climate change - but ordinarily significant changes in CO2 concentration (and resulting warming) happen over thousands of years. We are forcing such changes in hundreds (and now in dozens) of years.

Difficult to see you argument: As I wrote: We had a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300, followed by a Little Ice Age until around 1900. Says Philip Stott, London University professor emeritus of bio-geography: "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today."
So how does your point sit with this. How can you say "we are forcing climate change" in medieval times when there was no fossil fuel being used by humans? We had global warming then and no human activity you now blame for global warming. I can not see that you are proving your point. I assume you might be referring to the popular "hockey stick" theory (which might be the base for your above point). Please note that some scientist believe they have proven it to be bogus (refer to the report I provided link to below).

Quote

Depends on what "that big" is. If you look at total sinks and sources, you're correct - we're only about 3% of the total CO2 emission worldwide. If we were part of a cycle (i.e. if we were using fossil fuels at the same rate they were being made) then it would be no issue - the carbon would be reabsorbed as fast as it was made. However, we are now overwhelming the natural systems that reabsorb CO2; this is clear from how fast the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is rising. If we emitted about half as much as we were now, the ecosystem would most likely be able to absorb the excess CO2.

Well, I have not personally the scientific background to discuss this in detail. I do however refer to a very interesting report from the British House of Lords which documents that these are NOT as clear cut as the "greens" tell us. Here is a link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1202.htm

It both documents the popular view of how global waming occurs and how it will continue. But also documents the sceptics who do not think that things are quite as clear cut. I recommend it as balanced reading in this debate. Some of the "sceptical" ponts to popular accepted "facts" and "models" used by the "green side" that are mentioned are:

concerns that changes in ice-core record CO2 concentrations might have followed temperature rise rather than the other way round;

the poor nature of the data used to compute the long run historical record, or alleged misinterpretation of the long-run historical temperature record;

the GCMs fail to "reconstruct" the long term historical record;

the view of some that the relative importance of the natural factors affecting climate variability, e.g. variation in solar output, is underplayed in the IPCC assessments;

apparent divergences between land-based temperature records and satellite-based measurements, the latter showing some cooling rather than warming in recent years;

the manner in which the GCMs are adjusted until they align with the observed data;

the uncertain role of cloud cover.

Quote

I am now carbon-neutral; my direct and first level indirect usages of fossil fuels (driving, skydiving, air travel) are counteracted by how much power I generate via my solar system. (Also by using E50 instead of pure gas, using a hybrid, biking to work etc.) I'm not living in a stone age society. It can be done if we want to do it. The money from two fewer wars could cut our CO2 emission levels in half with some pretty simple (and currently existing) technologies. It's all a question of what's more important to us.

Firstly a lot of people do not have the economic means to create a set-up like yours. You also very conveniently forget the fossil fuel needed to peoduce the products you use in your household. You also forget the effect on production, employment and wealth a major quick reduction in fossil fuels would have. Not that I am against trying to increase alternative energy and cut down consumtion - just don't believe major quick changes are possible.

Quote

We use more than twice what India and China _combined_ use.

>a) have a huge increase of consumption . . .

No argument there. But they are still using less than a quarter of what China uses. When they are using 20 million barrels a day I would agree that they should put as much effort into CO2 emissions as we do. Until then, asking them to put 25% of the effort into it that we do would be fair and equitable.

Firstly China's consumption is increasing so fast that they are up to 5 million barrels a day already and projections say that they will use more then the US within 20 years. So I can see no logic in trying to only focus on reducing consumption in the US and western countries when the increase in China, India and lets not forget Africa will more then outway what we cut back in the West. The secondary effect is also a strategic shift in economic / production power which we already see. So any effort needs to be global. I see this as a big flaw in the Kyoto plan.


I am just endorsing a more open minded attitude towards the global warming issue. Too much of the science that is being used as "gospel" can be challenged. I think governments should put much more effort into research of the issue. I am concerned we might be "wasting" resources on measures that might not have a significant effect.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mnealtx 0]

Does anyone know if the current models reflect variances in solar output and reflect the fact that many of the temperature recording stations have had cities (more heat) develop around them?

I'll be interested in seeing if there's any changes in results after that is all factored in...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,132]

>Difficult to see you argument: As I wrote: We had a Medieval Warm
>Period from 800 to 1300, followed by a Little Ice Age until around
>1900.

Yes. Between 1000 and 1600, average temps fell about .4C.

>Says Philip Stott, London University professor emeritus of bio-
>geography: "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was
>warmer even than today."

He must have said that around 1970 or so, because temperatures today are significantly higher than the medieval warm period. See attached graph. (Each color line uses a different method to estimate past temperatures.)

>So how does your point sit with this. How can you say "we are forcing
> climate change" in medieval times when there was no fossil fuel
> being used by humans?

I didn't say that. There are a great many reasons that average temperatures change, from cyclic variations in sun output to vulcanism to clathrate gas releases. We are currently the strongest forcer, but that doesn't mean there haven't been others.

>It both documents the popular view of how global waming occurs and
> how it will continue. But also documents the sceptics who do not
> think that things are quite as clear cut.

What is clear cut is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and our emission of it is causing the planet to warm; the report states this categorically. The debate now centers on how much it will warm and what effects this will have.

>concerns that changes in ice-core record CO2 concentrations might
>have followed temperature rise rather than the other way round;

They almost certainly do, and this is one of the scarier bits of info uncovered, one that points to the possibility that we will soon hit a 'tipping point' where nothing we can do will halt a rapid rise in temperature.

>the poor nature of the data used to compute the long run historical
> record, or alleged misinterpretation of the long-run historical
> temperature record;

When you start with "alleged (intentional) misinterpretation" you get into politics, and away from science. Once you go down that road, I could just as accurately claim that big oil is trying to supress any hint of global warming. And while they often do just that, by and large the more serious scientific community ignores them (as they ignore the pressures on the other side.)

>the GCMs fail to "reconstruct" the long term historical record;

We don't _have_ a long term historical record. We have only very vauge indications of global temperatures past about 2000 years back.

>the view of some that the relative importance of the natural factors
> affecting climate variability, e.g. variation in solar output, is
> underplayed in the IPCC assessments;

It's not just underplayed; it's largely disregarded. Additional solar flux will _also_ increase temperatures. Reducing solar flux will reduce temperatures. A volcanic eruption that puts a lot of aerosols and dust into the atmosphere will cause cooling. The IPCC does not take those into account because they are not predictable. (Which is how it should be; you should not take unpredictable events into account when trying to build an accurate prediction.)

>apparent divergences between land-based temperature records and
> satellite-based measurements, the latter showing some cooling
> rather than warming in recent years;

If you mean the satellite microwave measurements of atmospheric temperatures, they also show warming, just half as much as predicted.

>the uncertain role of cloud cover.

The role of cloud cover is pretty well defined. The issue is what mediates the amount of cloud cover.

>Firstly a lot of people do not have the economic means to create
>a set-up like yours.

If you can afford a luxury SUV you can afford such a system. Based on the number of these I see on the road, about 25% of the people here could afford such a system.

>You also very conveniently forget the fossil fuel needed to peoduce
>the products you use in your household.

Like food? We get as much local organically-grown food as possible; locally grown food takes less fuel to transport and organically grown food uses less fossil fuels to generate fertilizers and pesticides. We also grow our own.

Like packaging? Yes, plastics use oil. Note that I am not arguing that we need to use zero fossil fuels, we just need to reduce our usage.

>You also forget the effect on production, employment and wealth a
> major quick reduction in fossil fuels would have.

I am not forgetting it at all. It would be a huge boon. Consider how many people would be employed by local construction companies, solar cell manufacturers, electrical supply houses, inverter manufacturers, battery manufacturers and plumbing supply houses. It would rival a war for the amount of jobs generated.

>Firstly China's consumption is increasing so fast that they are up to 5
> million barrels a day already and projections say that they will use
> more then the US within 20 years.

Agreed. So in 20 years they should be doing as much as we do to prevent CO2 emissions. (Of course, within 20 years we'll be using 40 million barrels a day unless we do something to slow down our own usage.)

>The secondary effect is also a strategic shift in economic / production
> power which we already see. So any effort needs to be global. I see
> this as a big flaw in the Kyoto plan.

This is a political issue, not an issue of science or fairness. A proposal that leaves the US unaffected and puts most of the burden on less-CO2-emitting developing countries would not only be immensely unfair, it wouldn't do much to reduce CO2 emissions. As I said before, a fair plan would burden the US with at least four times the reduction requirements as China.

>I am just endorsing a more open minded attitude towards the global
> warming issue. Too much of the science that is being used
> as "gospel" can be challenged.

Never mind "too much" - ALL of the science can be challenged, and it is being challenged every day. The results we are seeing now are the results of decades of measurement, discussion, challenge and review. And the results that are pretty much incontrovertible are:

1. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas.

2. We have increased the amount in the atmosphere by almost 50% by burning fossil fuels.

3. Global temperatures are higher as a result.

4. We will dramatically increase CO2 concentrations even further unless we take immediate and effective action to stop the increase.

What we don't know yet is:

1. How bad the changes will be from the increased temperatures

2. How quickly they will happen

3. What new climactic mechanisms we might see at higher temperatures that will either ameliorate or exacerbate the problems

4. How we can reverse these changes, if it's possible at all

My position is that we shouldn't wait until after the first disasters hit before we start thinking about the solution to the problem.

>I think governments should put much more effort into research of
>the issue. I am concerned we might be "wasting" resources on
>measures that might not have a significant effect.

I liken that to studying hurricanes in Louisiana instead of building levees, hoping that, a few hours before a storm hits, we will discover we don't need to fix the levees after all. After all, a storm like Katrina COULD veer away at the last moment - why spend all that money if it might not even be necessary? Why not put that money into studying the storm instead of wasting it on building levees?

We've seen the result of that sort of thinking. Let's hope we can make better decisions in the future.

[billvon 3,132]

>Does anyone know if the current models reflect variances in solar
>output . . .

The models attempt to predict variations, but we don't fully understand what drives solar flux variations. We do know there are some basic cycles - the 11 year sunspot cycle, the Maunder Minimum cycles that occur every 180-300 years, and the overall change in solar flux due to stellar evolution (billions of years.) As far as we can tell the sunspot cycles do not drive climate, but the Maunder cycles do have some effect.

>and reflect the fact that many of the temperature recording stations
>have had cities (more heat) develop around them?

Yes, that's factored into the measurements. There has been some debate about whether there is too much or too little compensation. Note that it's inaccurate to discount ALL the heat-island effects, because cities do warm the air around them significantly, and this does affect weather.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Does anyone know if the current models reflect variances in solar
>output . . .

The models attempt to predict variations, but we don't fully understand what drives solar flux variations. We do know there are some basic cycles - the 11 year sunspot cycle, the Maunder Minimum cycles that occur every 180-300 years, and the overall change in solar flux due to stellar evolution (billions of years.) As far as we can tell the sunspot cycles do not drive climate, but the Maunder cycles do have some effect.

>and reflect the fact that many of the temperature recording stations
>have had cities (more heat) develop around them?

Yes, that's factored into the measurements. There has been some debate about whether there is too much or too little compensation. Note that it's inaccurate to discount ALL the heat-island effects, because cities do warm the air around them significantly, and this does affect weather.

Nice to know that they're continuing efforts to refine their models.

I had read something before (unfortunately, I can't find it now) that mentioned solar output variations, heat island effects and something about cold current capture(?) that seemed to debunk several of the theories. I'll see if I can find it again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mikkey 0]

Bill,

I wont get into each point of your post again as it IMO reflects the disagreement about the science behind the discussion well documented in the House of Lords report to which I provided the link.

I recommend people to read the report and make up their own mind. You mention that some issues are "political" and not about science - and I agree - this is the crux of my point. This IS a political issue as much as it is scientific.

The key issues from a political point of view are:

- Should we base major changes to our economic infrastructure on science (and models) that is disputed?
- What are the global strategic issues?
- If we can not stop global warming (only marginally) as some scientist claim - should we then maybe focus more on how to adapt to a warmer climate instead of fighting a loosing battle?

I don't believe that changing certain behaviors of the 25% wealthiest people in the industrialised countries will alone solve the problem.

I want to be clear that I think we actually should attempt to shift away from fossil fuels towards alternative energy and also try to reduce other greenhouse gasses - I just think that we have to be realistic and
a) ensure we do not shoot ourselves in the foot by damaging the economic infrastructure (as some measures suggested by "greens" do).
b) look at what needs to be done to adapt to a planet that will get warmer no matter what we do.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,132]

>Should we base major changes to our economic infrastructure
>on science (and models) that is disputed?

We base bigger changes on far less certain conclusions.

>If we can not stop global warming (only marginally) as some
>scientist claim - should we then maybe focus more on how to adapt
>to a warmer climate instead of fighting a loosing battle?

And that may be a very foolish decision. The costs of not changing our ways may be far higher than the costs of changing them. To use the Katrina example again - it might well cost a lot of money to reinforce the levees, and that money might better be used to, say, give the middle class a tax cut. Indeed, if we don't make that tax cut, the economy might founder, businesses may go under etc. At last estimate the cost of the flooding will be in the tens of billions. Was it a good decision in retrospect to save money on the levees?

We may someday look back on our decision to ignore CO2 emissions in the same way. I hope we are smart enough to avoid such a costly mistake.

>I don't believe that changing certain behaviors of the 25% wealthiest
>people in the industrialised countries will alone solve the problem.

That's definitely true. But those 25% of the wealthiest people emit over 95% of the carbon dioxide, so it's a place to start.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

To use the Katrina example again - it might well cost a lot of money to reinforce the levees, and that money might better be used to, say, give the middle class a tax cut. Indeed, if we don't make that tax cut, the economy might founder, businesses may go under etc. At last estimate the cost of the flooding will be in the tens of billions. Was it a good decision in retrospect to save money on the levees?

You can also "turn" the argument and say that it is better to invest in improving the levees the trying to lower the water level, i.e. use more money in protecting from changes in nature then trying to change nature....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,132]

>You can also "turn" the argument and say that it is better to invest
>in improving the levees . . .

I agree! And if anyone proposed a solution that involved technology improvements to reduce our emissions of CO2 (instead of, say, outlawing cars) I'd be all for it.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

>You can also "turn" the argument and say that it is better to invest
>in improving the levees . . .

I agree! And if anyone proposed a solution that involved technology improvements to reduce our emissions of CO2 (instead of, say, outlawing cars) I'd be all for it.

Not quite. What I meant was: The Dutch started building dams last time the sea levels started rising (hundreds of years ago) and have now the most sophisticated coast protection system in the World. Holland would be under water if they did not.

So the lesson could be - if we can not stop global warming - and if the sea levels are rising due to reduced polar ice caps - maybe we should look at what we can do to protect islands and countries under threat and not just use all the ressources for marginally decreasing global warming.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,132]

>So the lesson could be - if we can not stop global warming - and if
> the sea levels are rising due to reduced polar ice caps - maybe we
> should look at what we can do to protect islands and countries under
> threat and not just use all the ressources for marginally decreasing
> global warming.

Do you really think it's a good idea to create a world of New Orleanses when storm activity is going to increase at the same time? I can just see a future poster saying "What the hell were we thinking? Miami is BELOW SEA LEVEL and we expect it to withstand a Category 6 hurricane?" By that time it's too late to decide it's a bad idea.

I also think it's morally wrong to increase sea level through our inaction and then just let the poorer countries deal with it. (I have a feeling "raise all the coastal cities and small islands on the planet" is never going to be affordable.)

It may be that there is no way to stop what we have started. But we don't know that, and to say "we don't know so we should do nothing" has gotten us some of the world's greatest disasters. Unless we are OK with that then we should take action, rather than wait to see if anything bad happens.