Re: OT Gas Prices and the Blame Game

On May 17, 8:03�pm, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 17 mei, 21:24, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





Martin Brown wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On 16 mei, 14:32, "amdx" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

�Bottom line is Drill Alaska, Florida coast, and California.

http://archives.gophercentral.com/Conservative_Review_.html

The creep quoted obviously doesn't believe in global warming, so feels
free to ignore it. By the time global warming gets bad enough that
even inland idiots like Jim Thompson can't ignore it, it's going to be
much more difficult - probably impossible, with a significant
proportion of global resources suddenly vanishing under the rising
seas - to do anything about it.

The Neocons will still be denying climate change even when the sea is
lapping at the steps of the White House. Plenty of the USA is well above
sea level so they do not care.

Florida will be first to get what it deserves though.

� �Actually, I'm twice as high as London, whih is only 49 feet above sea
level. Most of England would be under water before Florida, if there was
any truth to your crap.

This would be true if you could just wait for the average sea level to
rise enough to submerge your house. Unfortunately for you. Florida is
exposed to hurricanes, which only grown in areas where the sea surface
is hotter than 26.5 Cecius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

As global warming progresses, the tropical sea surfaces will be above
26.5 C more freuquently and over larger areas, so there will be more
hurricanes, and more powerful hurricanes. The storm surge associated
with such a hurricane is going to wash you and your house out to sea
long before the average sea level has risen enough to threaten even
the lowest point in your garden. Check out the latest reports from
Burma to get some idea of how this will go.

England and the Netherlands are a long way too far north to have to
worry about hurricanes for now and for the next hundred years or so.

� �Bill is too stupid to realize that Phoenix is 1100 feet above sea
level, while Nijmegen is list at about 22 feet above sea level? �My home
is abut 100 feet above sea level so if Bill gets his wish, he will be
dead, long before either of us. �I wonder if he even remembers that
floating ice displaces the same amount of sea water as it will after it
melts?

I obviously did, since I went to the trouble of specifying that I was
talking about the ice caps on Greenland and Antartica, which don't
float.

Not true. Ice floating on cold brine at or near the poles the additional
volume increase on melting is about 3% because the ice displaces its own
*weight* of water. You also get some additional expansion of the bulk
ocean from warming of the water and loss of habitat in the tropics if
the water warms too much.

The ice deposits on Greenland and Antarctica is mostly land based. Its
melting contribution to sea level change is 100%. Ditto for Glacier
National Park which will soon be rather oddly misnamed.

� �And just how soon will that be? 10,000 years?

Probably less - the ice caps could melt where they are over that kind
of time-scale. The more worrying possibility is that the ice caps
could become mechanically unstable, and slide off the underlying rock
into the sea as floating icebergs, where they would raise the sea
levels without having to melt first. Of course, icebergs do tend to
drift towards the equator, and they do seem to melt long before they
get there.

Predicting when that might happen isn't easy - you'd have to know a
lot more about the temperature distribution within the ice caps than
we do at the moment - and the IPCC has ignored this particular risk
simply because none of the existing models are good enough to generate
reliable predictions.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I personally think the damage will get here long before the water
does.

For example: If 5 or 10 years from now the global climate models
prove to be even remotely accurate, then people will panic. I don't
think it will make any difference if the models say 10 feet in 20
years, and we only get 3 feet. The trend will be clear, and our
economic (and other) systems will collapse. (And in all liklihood,
the models will get even better by then..)

The only meaningful variable is time. What is the duration start-to-
finish, and is that enough time for a soft landing? I doubt it. This
is Mother Nature's "big fix" coming in to remedy the world's over-
population. -mpm
.

Relevant Pages

  • North Carolina among most at risk to rising seas
    ... N.C. among most at risk to rising seas ... New York where the rates of sea level rise are moderately high. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: North Carolina among most at risk to rising seas
    ... N.C. among most at risk to rising seas ... New York where the rates of sea level rise are moderately high. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Noahs Fllod (not jokey)
    ... Controversy over the great flood hypotheses in the Black Sea in light ... Black Sea-Mediterranean Corridor during the last 30ka: ... increased the Black Sea level very gradually up to -20 m, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT Gas Prices and the Blame Game
    ... sea level so they do not care. ... This would be true if you could just wait for the average sea level to ... hurricanes, and more powerful hurricanes. ... Probably less - the ice caps could melt where they are over that kind ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Action Needed on Global Warning
    ... try to agree on what they would each do (the Kyoto Global Warming ... and sea level over the past 420,000 years. ... increase in greenhouse emission can cause temperatures to rise between ... Greenland's ice would add seven meters to the ocean levels, ...
    (soc.retirement)