Text 11443, 122 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 21:21:16 av Carl (14882.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:6ns7s2d8pj9r13f50p9j5d719j1hhrik47@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:48:06 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>>All of the things that are practical and reasonable (and won't destroy 
>>>>the
>>>>economy) won't be enough to make much difference for a very long time.
>>>>That
>>>>doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the damage we cause, but
>>>>get
>>>>past the "If we don't do this right now..." rhetoric  and accept that if
>>>>GW
>>>>proponents are right, we're going to have to deal with it and everyone 
>>>>in
>>>>the US giving up cars completely and having solar panels and windmills 
>>>>in
>>>>our back yards won't prevent it.
>>>
>>> I don't think that entirely true. Which is to say that while some
>>> warming is inevitable because we've already released the gases, even
>>> some of the most vociferous scientific warming advocates have said we
>>> can head off the most dire consequences if we take serious action now.
>>
>>There are other factors that are causing warming, and even if you were
>>able to completely negate all of them (not just the human caused ones),
>>there is still a certain momentum created that will last quite some time.
>>
>>> I've devoted a fair amount of time to researching the engineering end
>>> over the last year and -- putting on my professional hat for the
>>> moment -- I'm convinced that we have, or could with minimal effort
>>> have, all of the resources we need to slash greenhouse emissions
>>> without economic damage or hardship.
>>
>>That would also require buy in from the Chinese and others.
>>The Russians have never exaclty been known as environmentalists either.
>>India?  Not likely.
>
> I think there's a simple solution to that -- slap tariffs on any
> nation that refuses to adopt reasonable carbon limits. The French are
> already threatening to do that to /us,/ with IMO complete
> justification:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01climate.html


Oh yeah, tarrifs and sanctions work ever so well.  Look at Iran.
I doubt it would deter China much.

>>BTW, with all of the posturing against the US over the issue, 13
>>countries in the EU have their CO2 emmissions rising at twice the rate
>>of the US (according to a report cited on one of the news stations today.
>>I couldn't tell you which one because I switch between them regularly
>>so that I don't get stuck hearing just one view).
>
> Too many possibilities for spin in that one. Why don't they give the
> overall figures?

I think they did, but I didn't catch them (my daughter was asking me a
question).  They were referencing a new report.  If I find it, I'll let you
know.

>>>>Let's say Gore is right and the oceans are going to rise 20 feet.  Then
>>>>the
>>>>"Inconvenient" part of that truth is that  people should move away from
>>>>the
>>>>coasts.  I would think this is also an argument against rebuilding New
>>>>Orleans.
>>>
>>> Should that happen, we'll end up building seawalls for high value real
>>> estate, such as Manhattan, and abandoning less dense areas. New
>>> Orleans could arguably be placed in the former category.
>>
>>If the water were to raise 20 feet (or even 10) you would have
>>to build such a wall up and down the entire coasts.  That much
>>water would likely move inland for miles, and wrap around the wall
>>unless it also came in for miles.
>
> I don't have the figures, but 20 feet above sea level doesn't sound
> very high.

I think you underestimate the engineering requirements of building
a wall up to probably 40/50 feet (you have to account for waves and
bad weather) from the sea floor and have that extend for miles and
miles and withstand the ocean.


>>Are you going to build a wall around all of Florida?
>
> No, but I think you've put your finger on the problem: global warming
> is anything but trivial. It /cannot/ be allowed to reach the 20 foot
> stage.

If the GW models are right, it's probably too late to do much about it.

>
>>Imagine the lawsuits because of the effect on marine life around the 
>>coasts.
>>That alone would stall the issue for decades.
>
> If warming progresses, marine life will have worse things to worry
> about . . .

Won't stop the lawyers.

>>As for New Orleans...  right now it is a less dense area.  Rebuilding
>>in an area that is already below sea level when the sea level may rise
>>feet seems like a dubious choice.
>
> If you were talking about a featureless suburban tract somewhere, I'd
> say sure, but a city like New Orleans is more than just some houses.
> My only regret is that the redevelopment, like the rescue, has been
> botched. Among other things, they should be abandoning the
> neighborhoods most susceptible to flooding, and retreating to a more
> sustainable perimeter.

Accounting for not 20 but perhaps significantly higher seas in bad
weather, how much of the area is sustainable?
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)