Text 11446, 188 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 23:15:20 av Josh Hill (14885.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Cath0licism and Creati=nism
=======================================
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:21:16 -0600, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"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.

The sanctions on Iran are at best nominal, thanks IIRC to the
Russians. Even so, they are having an effect -- there's apparently a
lively debate within Iran about whether they're worth it.

Tariffs would I think almost certainly have an effect on the Chinese,
who are a good deal wiser and more economically pragmatic than the
nutcase president of Iran, or Saddam. They certainly have an effect on
us -- see the current White House attempt to reduce farm subsidies in
the face of European threats.

>>>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.

Sounds good to me.
>
>>>>>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.

I wasn't referring to the wall, but rather to the height above sea
level once you move a bit inland.

>>>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.

From today's account of the UN report:

"They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming,
shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup
of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be
substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said
in a report released here today."

http://tinyurl.com/27pw4a

The degree of melting is still apparently open to question:

'Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at
even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century
could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm
spell between ice ages, the report said. 

'At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher
than they are now. Muych of that extra water is now trapped in the ice
sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places. 

'The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how
rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their
estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed
oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice
now on land. 

'Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers
and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more
quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the
risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the I.P.C.C.
is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation, and so
could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.'

[Ibid]

>>>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.

Hope they have SCUBA gear . . .

>>>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?

Oh, it would probably be history -- I believe I heard a climate
scientist say as much once. But I'm optimist enough to think we'll be
smart enough to keep things from going that far.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)