Oh bother. It won't happen overnight and the cost of moving the coastal
Florida cities fifty miles inland would be a pittance compared to trying to
significantly curtail carbon emissions.
Has anyone actually figured out how much the sea level would rise?
Best I can find is this: If ALL the land ice in Antarctica melted, the
oceans would rise about 61 meters. If all the Greenland ice melted, add
another seven meters. All in all, about 220 feet.
But the average temperature of Antarctica is -37C. A global temperature rise
of even ten degrees means Antarctica remains frozen. In other words, no
amount of temperature increase predicted, or even contemplated, will make
one iota of difference in the land ice of Antarctica.
If the land ice if Antarctica doesn't melt, all we have to do is worry about
the land ice in Greenland. If it ALL melted, sea levels would rise 20 feet.
If half melted, we'd be at your ten foot mark.
As for the Dutch being jeopardized, they could move to Greenland. And grow
Since 1990, the sea level has risen 0.13mm (how they can measure this small
an increase is beyond me). At that rate, it would take 192 years for the sea
level to rise one inch!
To prevent that looming "catastrophe," there are those who would have us
lives lives that are painful, brutish, and short.
Global temperatyure changes are uneven across the globe. The poles
change more, and the tropics change less.
Lately, warming has been disproportionately in and near the Arctic, in
part from polar areas changing more, and in part because a set of
multidecadal oscillations has shifted heat northward over the past 30 or
Historically, when the globe was 7-8 degrees C warmer than it is now,
there was no thick polar ice. Last time the world was approx. 3 degrees
warmer than it is now (~95,000-100,000 years ago), most of Greenland's ice
melted, although Antarctica's ice survived.
Then again, the way global climate sensitivity is looking to me, even
getting CO2 up to 600-700 PPMV would only make the world about 1.5 degrees
C warmer than it is now. Some of the "positive feedbacks" reported by
IPCC are looking very much overestimated.
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
If all the ice in Arctic Ocean melted, the sea level wouldn't rise a
And your conjuecture of "CO2 up to 600-700 PPM would only make the world
about 1.5 degrees C warmer," I suggest may very well be cause and effect
backwards. It's the warmer earth that causes increased CO2, not the reverse.
But if Greenland's landborne ice sheet melts, sea level rises about 7
From sometime millions of years ago to a couple hundred years ago, that
was the case. Back then, the amount of carbon in the global ecosystem was
pretty constant. Atmospheric CO2 level was a positive feedback system,
following and amplifying a global temperature change whose root cause was
something else - often the Milankovitch cycles. Temperature affects ratio
of CO2 in the atmosphere to that in oceans, while CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
In the past several decades, atmospheric CO2 was rising despite the
fact that nature (mainly the oceans) has been removing CO2 from the
- Don Klipstein ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
You were okay until the last sentence. There is absolutely no proof that
increased CO2 contributes to global warming. In fact, just the opposite may
very well be true: Global warming causes an increase in CO2.
False as to fact. The cost of dealing with global warming is easily offset
by the value of global warming (i.e., longer growing seasons and less
weather-related deaths). Meanwhile the cost of attempting to offset GW is
Because there is no unequivocal evidence that carbon emissions have anything
to do with GW.
Look up the definition of the word "belief." Never mind, I'll do it for you:
Belief - Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately
susceptible to rigorous proof; confidence; faith; trust; a religious tenet
or tenets; religious creed or faith.
In other words, GW enthusiasts hold to a premise with a religious fervor
marked by trust and faith but not susceptible to proof.
Sounds about right to me.
It was Ivan who said AGW is a belief system.
I was simply agreeing with the part:
"Yeah, there are some scientists who don't believe. There always are, always
have been, and always will be--and that's good, because the whole point of
science is informed skepticism. But more of them -- especially those who
specialize in climate -- do."
Again, he's the one who said AGW is a belief system.
No, I don't. I just remember than an increase of a few degrees would
increase the Canadian growing seasons, allowing three crops of some grains
instead of two.
There are MANY more deaths attributed to cold weather world-wide than those
caused by higher temperatures. I don't know of any tabulations.
How much of that was additional to the usual background noise.
Also, the news articles seem to indicate that this is more related to
smoke and respiratory deaths from the wildfires. We had droughts long
before carbon was a problem.
During 1999--2002, a total of 4,607 death certificates in the United
States had hypothermia-related diagnoses listed as the underlying cause
of death or nature of injury leading to the underlying cause of death
(annual incidence: four per 1,000,000 population) according to the CDC.
That works out to about 1100 or so deaths a year.
CDC for hyPERthermia shows that during 1999--2003, a total of 3,442
deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual
So, yeah, it would seem more from too cold.
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Made-up numbers and "fact by consensus" are the coin of the global
warming realm, it seems.
But warming and cooling cycles are a fact of history.
The only issue is how much mankind influences that.
The alarmists say "A whole bunch" and the real scientists say "not so much".
Didn't you ever hear the argument: "If just ONE life is saved" that
what ever it is is "worth it"? The argument is that if one child's
life is saved by "gun control" then the fact that you are putting in
place the pre-conditions for the genocide of millions (proven by
history over and over again) is supposed to not be important and is
supposed to be ignored. It all goes to show it's about politics and
Consider a similar argument: "Better that fifty guilty men go free than one
innocent person unjustly suffer."
What's magic about "50"? If we must avoid punishing an innocent person at
all costs, why not 100 go free? Why not 1000? Why not 10,000? In fact, why
have punishment at all?
A few years ago, as I recall, 7,000 Frenchies died during a heat wave in
Paris. But who's counting French and Russians.
And no, I'm not making it up. I read it on the internet.
In heat waves, deaths due to cardiovascular problems increase. This is more
than offset by upper respiratory problems found during cold waves.
"...there are from ~5-15X more deaths due to Cold, than due to Warm Events."
"The average number of deaths attributed to cold is 770 yearly,
substantially higher than the number attributed to heat (Kilbourne, 1997)."
"Demographically speaking, cold is actually a far bigger killer than heat.
In the Northern Hemisphere, the Grim Reaper makes more house calls in
December, January, and February, while-this year's statistically anomalous
summertime mortality excepted-he tends to take time off during July, August,
and September ."
And so on.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.