Climate data hint at irreversible rise in seas

[ecoli]

http://www.climate%20data%20hint%20at%20irreversible%20rise%20in%20seas.com/

 

In the next 100 year, global average temperatures could be as much as four degrees higher, translating into a sea level rise of 13-20 feet. The rise would be caused by eroding polar ice caps the damage which, according to computer models, is irreversible. Such conditions haven't been seen on earth science 300 thousand years ago, when Earth was between to two ice ages. By not curbing our production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses we are essentially endangering our coastlines, where some of the worlds largest cities are.

 

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years as an aftereffect of the warming and polar melting that followed the last ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. Discriminating between that residual effect and any new influence from human actions remains impossible for the moment, many experts say.

[gcol]

http://www.climate%20data%20hint%20at%20irreversible%20rise%20in%20seas.com/

 

In the next 100 year' date=' global average temperatures could be as much as four degrees higher, translating into a sea level rise of 13-20 feet. The rise would be caused by eroding polar ice caps the damage which, according to computer models, is irreversible. Such conditions haven't been seen on earth science 300 thousand years ago, when Earth was between to two ice ages. By not curbing our production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses we are essentially endangering our coastlines, where some of the worlds largest cities are.[/quote']

 

Whether it is a natural cycle which since the industrial revolution we have been accelerating, or which will happen anyway is debatable. What should be exercising our minds, with science to the forefront, is how we can mitigate the effects of the "diaster".

 

In your case, living on Long Island, I suggest you buy a big boat or start a self-sufficiency commune on Mt. Arrarat, or in the long term evolve to have gills. . Crossbreed with a mermaid?

[herpguy]

This is no big news to me. We've known this for a while now.

 

To save the big cities, perhaps building a giant sea wall. It's complicated and expensive, but nothing compared to what could happen.

[ecoli]

This is no big news to me. We've known this for a while now.

 

except that we seem to be reaching a critical, "event horizon" of climate change.

 

To save the big cities, perhaps building a giant sea wall. It's complicated and expensive, but nothing compared to what could happen.

 

Sea walls don't really work, water can erode underneath them.

[AzurePhoenix]

To save the big cities, perhaps building a giant sea wall. It's complicated and expensive, but nothing compared to what could happen.

Not very practical, or not at all when you consider the sheer extent of the rising waters. Say you do build a big wall around each "victim city" strong enough to hold back the water. What then? It'd basically be surrounded on all sides by water and would sit below sea-level. It's just not practical. When the time comes, people will just have to move, or grow gills.

[ecoli]

Not very practical, or not at all when you consider the sheer extent of the rising waters. Say you do build a big wall around each "victim city" strong enough to hold back the water. What then? It'd basically be surrounded on all sides by water and would sit below[/i'] sea-level. It's just not practical. When the time comes, people will just have to move, or grow gills.

 

The latter seems attractive to me

[herpguy]

Good points with the sea wall ecoli and AzurePheonix.

 

Hmm... It's hard to think of plausable ideas.

[ecoli]

Good points with the sea wall ecoli and AzurePheonix.

 

Hmm... It's hard to think of plausable ideas.

 

How about we limit CO2 emmisions right NOW. Oh wait... that's hard to do when our own President is dening the evidence in front of his face.

[herpguy]

How about we limit CO2 emmisions right NOW. Oh wait... that's hard to do when our own President is dening the evidence in front of his face.

Even if our president wasn't a total idiot, ending all CO2 emissions now wouldn't stop the warming for another 400 years (says an article I read a while back). So we would also have to clean up the atmosphere.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How about we limit CO2 emmisions right NOW. Oh wait... that's hard to do when our own President is dening the evidence in front of his face.

Perhaps you would realize that he isn't the one making the laws, Congress does that. He only decides if they should be implemented, and he hasn't vetoed anything yet.

[bascule]

Oh boy, time to nitpick at everyone's terminology

 

What should be exercising our minds, with science to the forefront, is how we can mitigate the effects of the "diaster".

 

Yes, the focus should be on identifying and seeking solutions to climate vulnerabilities.

 

To save the big cities, perhaps building a giant sea wall. It's complicated and expensive, but nothing compared to what could happen.

 

That's not exactly a solution for a country like Tuvalu that sits only slightly above sea level.

 

except that we seem to be reaching a critical, "event horizon" of climate change.

 

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "tipping point"

[bascule]

How about we limit CO2 emmisions right NOW. Oh wait... that's hard to do when our own President is dening the evidence in front of his face.

 

That's not a solution either. The Kyoto Protocol will only bring about a change in global mean surface temperatures which is less than the precision to which global mean surface temperatures can presently be assessed. The effect of limiting CO₂ output is negligable.

 

The solution, in my mind, is a collective effort by all nations on earth to identify and correct regional anthropogenic forcings, the "if everyone does a little we can do a lot" philosophy.

[bascule]

Salon had a story on Tuvalu today, I guess:

 

Tuvalu is drowning