The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It ain't necessarily so on sea rise > Comments

It ain't necessarily so on sea rise : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 16/8/2016

Given the amount of new CO2 and CH4 entering the atmosphere, heat, and therefore sea level, is likely to be higher than official estimates.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Mike Pope,

IPCC and the contributing authors are not conservative. They are alarmist. They are participating in group think and herd mentality.

RCP8.5 is a worst case scenario. It is highly improbable.

Furthermore, the planet is in a deep ice age - only the second in the past 540 million years - i.e. the entire period that multi-cell animal life has thrived. We are unlikely to get out of this ice age until North and South America separate again so warm waters can circulate the globe in low to mid latitudes.

Look at these three figures:
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/21-975a2df8d8.png
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/22-20227bbb57.jpg
Source: https://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse

Interpretation: even a 3C increase in global average temperature would get the planet up to only the middle of its temperature range over the past half billion years.

My interpretation of these three charts is as follows:

The 2nd chart – ‘Tropic to poles temperature gradient – Icehouse to Hothouse’ shows that if the global average temperature increases by 3C, from the current ~15C to 18C, the temperature at the poles would increase from -36C to -7C, and the temperature gradient from tropics to poles would decrease from 0.82C to 0.44C per degree latitude. That’s likely to be a massive net-benefit for the mid and higher latitudes.

The 1st chart shows that if the global average temperature increased by 3C, the temperatures would be similar to what they were about 35 million years ago. The 3rd chart shows that the temperature in the tropics 35 million years ago was about 1C higher than now.

This suggests even a 3C rise in global average temperatures means only a small (~1C) change in average temperature of the tropics and a huge benefit in warming of the mid and higher latitudes.

Given this, I am not persuaded there is valid justification for the Alarmists’ scaremongering.

Lastly, sea level rise this century is likely to be less than 0.5 m. Even the net damages of a 1 m sea level rise is inconsequential – about $1 trillion in about $20 trillion cum global GDP to 2100 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang ...sea levels have steadily risen 120 meters since the major glacial melts. Halted by the Holocene period which (at its end 8k years ago), began a precipitous rise of fifty feet in a period of one hundred years. I think a cautious alarm concerning sea level rise is appropriate.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 9:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

U R a breath of enlightened fresh air. U R right on the money about earth entering a Global Cooling phase caused by the low sunspot activity in the sun. Just HOW cool is the worrying question ?

Global warming and cooling have been occurring for thousands of years and is perfectly normal. Once the Thames froze over and Greenland was once temperate.

The current Global Warming hysteria is a fabricated fraud by the United Nations to try to get money from fear stuff like the carbon tax and ETS scams.
Posted by PollyFolly, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 9:28:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is another history in what is now a 30 year history of modern climate alarmism, but there is no need to argue about it. The actual present trend of increasing sea levels can be seen by everyone at http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/ over the last 22 years the satellite measurements analysed by Columbia Uni show that sea level increases have been running at about 3.4 mm a year. There has been an above trend increase in the past year due to the El Nino, just as there was a sharp cut back around 2010 due to the La Ninas of the time.

If there is an obvious, long-term increase above the line then we should react to it, but there would still be time - foreshore structures have a lifespan of maybe 50-60 years, tops? How long would it take to build sea walls if and when any are needed? Never mind the forecasts, just watch the sea level increases as they happen. Existing increases work out to about one third of a metre over a century (yes, check the units). Come back in about 10 years and we'll discuss if planning guidelines for the foreshores need to change.
Posted by curmudgeonathome, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 11:57:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only massive economic improvement beckons if we, #1 convert our economy to a carbon free one! #2 End our breathtakingly stupid reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels! #3 Start to produce our own oil via an algae based large scale algae farming industry.

Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in atmospheric carbon and under optimized growing conditions, literally double that body weight, absorption capacity/oil production every 24 hours!

A million tons of recoverable oil becomes 2 million tons overnight, exploiting effluent!

The ex-crush material, the basis of an equally viable, ethanol industry? Where the resultant sludge fed into digesters creates several resalable products including storable methane.

Used as scrubbed gas in ceramic fuel cells, as a combination, have a world beating 80% energy coefficient, the exhaust product, mostly pristine water vapor!

None of this will harm our economy or environment! Just the very opposite!

Some algae types are 60 % oil, and recovery is as simple as filtering some of the material, sun drying it, then crushing it to recover ready to use biodiesel! Why aren't we already doing this? Some of us are!

Sadly, that seems to be limited to foreigners with vision, not ruled by fear or the usual fossil fuel hype and propaganda?

Farmed algae only need around 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation and can be farmed in clear plastic pipes on ground that is no good for much else!

Moreover, they thrive on effluent, which they as mop crops, clean of problematic nutrient in the process.

Simple activated carbon filters, all that's needed to make the "borrowed water" suitable for other purposes, wetland regeneration and revival?

We will need to be government involvement as the financier and facilitator!

Given that requirement, the complete regeneration of the murray darling as a truly massive income earning area!

And a rescued river system that still produces environmental flows, even in the depth of even worse more enduring drought than we've experienced to date!

None of this will harm our economy, just the very opposite!
TBC Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 16 August 2016 12:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just keep telling yourselves it is all a lefty conspiracy.
Keep your minds closed, your bigotry strong and it will all be ok.
Or is it "Ill be dead by then so I dont care".

Either way you are fools who should be made to pay when you are shown to be wrong and made to suffer for the harm you are causing.
Gaol, bankruptcy and humiliation should be your future.
You should also be denied any sort of "expert" assistance in any way shape or form.
Should make you lot happy given your hatred of anyone smarter than you.

The age of the dumb f... is in full swing and we are all going to end up paying a heavy price for the idiocy and greed of a few scumbags who refuse to see anything other than their own selfish ideology of "Im alright screw everybody else". Including their own kids and grandkids.

What dogs.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 12:19:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain, adopting sane precautionary principles!

There's we're informed, via an ABC documentary, a large body of fresh water trapped in antarctic ice? Which when not if released, could raise the ocean levels of the world by around 7 metres, if memory serves?

All that's preventing that is a relatively thin wall of melting ice? 7 metres, roughly the length of a vertical cricket pitch, enough to drown most of coastal Australia!

Assurances by the now cash strapped fossil fuel industry, will neither prevent that outcome nor exacerbate it!

However, if we their captive market, take action on man made climate change? They first and foremost have literally everything to lose? Hence their ongoing obdurate obtuse obfuscation!

They don't like solar thermal and with good reason; as ably demonstrated by private enterprise, working examples, that demonstrate they compete favorably with coal on both roll out costs and as peak demand providers!

THe one glaring difference is the cost of the fuel of the solar thermal option remains forever free!

They invariably bag cheaper than coal thorium, a old fifties technology, abandoned given there was no weapons spinoff!

The reason why thorium is cheaper is, because unlike conventional oxide reactors, they consume most of their fuel (95%) and the minimal waste is far less toxic and eminently suitable for long life space batteries!

The Indians are working on a 300 MW reactor, which they claim will be operational this year?

However, other parties are working on miniaturization and modules that could cost as little as a $1,000.00 and power around ten houses? That's a hundred per house, with triannual maintenance limited to mostly routine inspections? Over an expected life of 25-50 years.

Add rechargable electric cars and many of the foregoing examples sound the deathknell of captive energy markets and the fossil fuel industry the world over!

Little wonder they are climbing all over the ether, with their diatribe of diabolically disingenuous denials?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 16 August 2016 12:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B. - that stuff all makes such a good story. It's all nonsense of course - but it makes a good story. I have been reading about such tech fixes for the past 50 years and more - sadly they are still too complicated and expensive to put into practice, but it is nice to dream.
Posted by curmudgeonathome, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 2:44:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk,

When are you going to pay up then? Your side of the argument has already been proved wrong. Consensus is all the alarmists talk about, and consensus is not science. Ten years or more, people like you are going to feel the idiots you are. So, be careful about those in the wrong having to be 'bankrupted'.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 5:10:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No it's not dreaming curmudgeon! The only risible rubbish appearing here, is from folk like you!

#1 Take the self applied blinkers or the blindfold off and take a trip to our northwest and examine a working example of algae reliant diesel production utilizing ever abundant seawater!

#2Take a trip to Holland, if you dare to be proven wrong as usual, oh suppository of all wisdom, where Dutch scientists are growing another algae variety under glass to produce ready to use jet fuel!

#3 Slip over to California or Arizona, if only to personally examine very large scale, private enterprise solar thermal power plants, built by hard nosed investors, with their own money, which cope more than well with peak demand!

#4 Take a trip to India if only to become actually fully informed on the promise of cheaper than coal thorium!

Alternatively, continuing reading and pomulcating the rubbish that tells you it ain't happening nor possible!

I could go on, but get properly pissed off casting pearls before willfully ignorant swine or drop kocks. Or the rest of you can go visit the nearest taxidermist, fossil fuel support brigade!

You all have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 16 August 2016 6:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the most important and useful acts Australia could undertake towards preservation of natural environment, elimination of greenhouse gasses, and improvement to public health would be an immediate reduction in cattle farming.

It is the worst industry in clearing bushland to produce an increase in CO2, and then it produces CH4, and then it produces cholesterol and other nasties, and then it often goes broke and wants public subsidisation or a public bailout.

Bring on the collapse of the dairy industry, as it has been a primary culprit in the clearing of rain-forest, to produce a product that has little benefit for public health, and produces a range of health effects including an increase in cholesterol, an increase in coronary heart disease, it impairs the ability to absorb iron, it increases weight gain, and it can lead to calcuim loss in bones if no exercise is carried out.

Whether someone believes in climate change or not, most of the activities that increase CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere also seem to be detrimental to the environment and public health, .
Posted by interactive, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:01:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the turn of the century, 1800's to now, we have seem enormous headway made by man, with regards to solutions to problems that 100 years ago were thought to be un-solvable to most.

Do you seriously believe that we, the human race, will not be able to come up with preventative measures to combat the likes of climate change before the so called dooms day arrives.

Get grip people. We have mouths to feed, jobs to provide and if we go around slashing emissions to what can only be described ridiculous levels, we will be clean, green and literally all unemployed. Then what!

Rather than the slash and burn approach, why are we not doing more research into the likes of carbon storage, with plantation timber being a huge potential for carbon storage to name just one.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk I understand about you wanting to punish people who do not agree with you. You want gaol, humiliation and bankruptcy for these people. Good call!
Will you accept the same for all the scientists and politicians when this does not happen as they say it will? No of course there will be excuses, blather and then threats of violence!
Mate you are being played, I object to this for you and for me.
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 7:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub

Plantation timber?

I live in an area that had a very large area of plantation timber of native species.

Unfortunately it was mono-culture, and pest and disease got into the trees, and the timber company behind it all went bankrupt, and the farmers have been doing their best to clear the timber to produce what they call "pasture" (which is another term for complete destructing of every living thing except exotic grasses).

I actually met a farmer who said he had a "good year", so he went and purchased 30 drums of Tordon.
Posted by interactive, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:02:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well the earth has been covered by water before.
it wasnt caused by mankind back then.

The big consumers of coal and fossil fuels are actually overpopulated countries
like China and India.

That therefore, says the problem is one caused by overpopulation..
The fault lies with countries whose overpopulation produces
a consumer base for ever more coal and fossil fuels.
It is actually not a first world problem at all, as we dont overpopulate,

Immigration into first world countries, thus providing more consumers for fossil
fuels is coming once again from overpopulated countries.

Put the blame where it belongs, on third world overpopulation.

This doesnt suit the political agenda of the global warming lot, Whose
feverish,idealism,over global warming, is a weapon to bash first
world countries,they never mention third world countries as
the main probable cause.
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:51:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Boston, MA is taking this very seriously. Sea level rise does not just depend upon a global mean, which is mostly what the IPCC discusses, but it depends upon local geography. It's not like water rising in a bathtub. So, generally, the east coasts of major continents (eastern coast of U.S., eastern coast of China) see more than western ones. Near Boston, sea level is rising because light, cold Arctic meltwaters are obstructing the free flow of the Gulf Stream, slowing it down, piling water up. And, in an amazing testament to the scale at which things are changing, waters are also rising on the northeastern coasts of the United States because Greenland's gravitational attraction is weakening, due to ice melt, allowing ocean waters not to be held so tightly against its mass.

In Boston's case, in the RCP8.5 scenario, there's a 50% chance of a 5 foot sea level rise by 2100, and many other effects. See https://goo.gl/hsYF6t
Posted by qcoder, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 3:23:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes. If I am wrong I expect severe punishment and loss.
I also expect severe punishment and loss if I am right.
The damage, death, disaster and pain that climate change is already bringing will affect us all, the innocent as well as the guilty.

Only fools ignore experts and I bet this issue is the only time you do it.
I find it offensive that you deniers continue to use doctors, medicine, airlines, cars, computers and all the other things you use that you have no idea about.
You just trust the "experts".
If it is good enough to trust "experts" in the vast majority of your lives then what justification do you have in dismissing climate experts?

If you deny climate science then logically you must deny all our advances and science that makes our lives better than anyone in history and have been brought to you by "experts".

Anything less makes you a hypocrite and a greedy, selfish scumbag who cares nothing for their own children and grandchildren and the risks we are bequeathing them. Nice!
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 11:19:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For goodness sake mikk be careful! Falling off your high horse can result in injury.
The main beef I have is with you and others bullying me about scientists who have already drained Billions of dollars from us but unable to get anything right.
Remember saint flannery, it will never rain in Brisbane again? Up until floods killed people it rained so hard.
I can make fifty year predictions too but that is meaningless as I will not be here.
These shysters are stealing our money with predictions of doom just like the Y2K bug and the hole in the ozone layer. It was rubbish then and it is still rubbish. Look believe what you want but eventually you will wake up and realise these people are only after your money and know the easiest way to get it is by scaring you. They do not scare me.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 6:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk, if you continue to fund research, researchers will continue to do their research.

I am not a climate change denier, nor am I an alarmist either. My problem is with jobs and finding a balance between environmental strategies and job protection and creation because without incomes, we will have nothing. Wanting to slash emissions by 50% is nothing short of economic vandalism and it will only ruin the countries who make, or at least attempt to make such changes.

We must find a solution to deal with carbon because closing our mines will be at our detriment.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,
Wanting NOT to slash emissions by 50% is nothing short of environmental vandalism, and our economy could absorbs such cuts quite easily.

Trying to get the government's budget into surplus when the private sector is weak is nothing short of economic vandalism, and has done more damage to our economy than any environmental policy ever has.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 18 August 2016 11:25:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan, I agree that trying to return to surplus is not good timing, however, governments seem incapable of doing anything constructive with our money, and all their talk bout changes to super, and big end tax hunts is scaring business away.

On top of this it would appear we now have to find funding to close down the camps in PnG, more wasted taxes we simply don't have.

Unfortunately this is all caused by the total incompetence of the Rudd government as his decision to remove our border protection measures is coming back to haunt us. We have huge debts, no money and given big business and super are in the governments sights, I see little chance of the situation improving. A whole new tax system would be our only chance or recovery in my view. Remember, we still have a car industry.

As for slashing emissions, you are obviously not responsible for creating jobs, because if you were, you would have a better understanding of what it takes.

I warned back in 08 that slashing confidence would be a killer, and that's what has happened, business confidence is all but gone in this country. The next phase will see big business retracting if not withdrawing all together.

Unless we introduce a new tax system, we are screwed.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 19 August 2016 7:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mostly its caused by the electorate being dumbed down by the clever whores in the 'lectronic whorehouse being paid by sugar daddies to misinform, mislead and generally take down the garden path those who cannot or will not remove their blinkers. The fact of BHP posting a loss of $6.4 Billion for 2015 - 2016 is probably cause for concern if you work for/deal with the mining industry. But was anyone in Canberra worried about the previous 20 years of profits...(again BHP) who, for instance from 2004 to 2014 showed a profit to ordinary shareholders of some $1,017 Billion ? Where did the profits go ? Certainly not into infrastructure improvements in WA, NT, Qld or indeed anywhere else Australia. Labor/Liberal whoever, all were happy for the so named mining boom to be p*ssed up the wall like a drillers pay packet back home off swing. A prudent and wise government would have capitalised on that "boom" and established a sovereign wealth fund for the future.

The Keating, Howard, Rudd\Gillard & the Abbott/Turnbull years could have certainly been the Golden Years of our history, even considering how well we weathered the GFC, it still could have been handled much better.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 19 August 2016 10:49:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Albie Manton in Darwin, I feel one of the main drivers of profits being shipped off shore, is our 'robin hood' style of funding, taking from the rich to support the poor.

The other problem we have is that all our mineral royalties could have been stashed away, but we simply have too many on the hand out list, so we need these monies just to pay the bills. Now that the mining boom is all but gone, we now have nothing left to turn to, that's why governments are now looking at large company taxes and peoples super. There is literally nothing else to tap in to.

We have an aging population, mass underemployment, very few paying more in taxes than they draw in welfare, and the illegals fallout to fund. There is simply nothing left, and the sooner our leaders accept this, the sooner we can get serious about changes to our outdated tax systems.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 19 August 2016 10:59:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Butch, I remember sitting at a symposium in 2003 with Tim Flannery present, with his opening comment something to the tune of - as I flew into Darwin I could barely see a solar panel on any roof under my flight path (at that time the outer suburbs of Palmerston were being developed and built).

Another speaker mentioned that by 2050 we could expect to see a sea level rise of 6 metres and drew the analogy of it being equivalent to the height of the palm trees fringing Fannie Bay...oh well,there goes Cullen Bay, Bayview and half of Darwin sort of thing...bring your mask and snorkel to get in the front door.

Going further back to the mid 1990's when I was studying refrigeration trades the (then new) laws for CFC's such as R12, R22, R117 had recently been enacted. All the old salts in the trade were bemoaning the fact they couldn't just open a valve and let refrigerant gases vent to atmosphere.

Things have changed due to various conventions, protocols and such, but keep in mind Du Pont de Nemours had the patents on just about very refrigerant made. So, was it just good business to invent a "hole in the ozone layer", fund a world wide programme to investigate the reasons for it and invent a new class of HCFC's to replace the older ones, with patent rights effective until 2040 ? I'd reckon so.

What many are not aware of is, that, although the new greenie friendly gases are lower in Ozone Depleting Potential, Greenhouse Warming Potential, reduced this & that...the lubricant oils inside the system used to keep compressors going are very nasty. Stuff like PAG (Polyalkylene Glycol) & others contain substances that will turn your hair purple, rot your testes off and cause three headed babies... almost.

Then we have the problem of the materials used to manufacture photo voltaic panels http://grist.org/climate-energy/those-cheap-chinese-solar-panels-have-a-dirty-little-secret/ so at the end of the day, where does it all end ?
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 19 August 2016 5:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
East Antarctica ( not the northern Peninsula but the cold part).

The team found that over the 13-year period they studied, the warmest (Southern Hemisphere) summer was between 2012 and 2013, with a total of 37 "positive degree days", and a mean daily surface air temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius in January.

For comparison, the 2007/2008 summer had just five positive degree days and a mean daily surface air temperature of -1.8 degrees Celsius in January.

During this 2012/2013 summer, Langhovde’s glacier surface experienced 36 percent more new lakes and surface channels overspilling than ever before.
Dow Chemicals and Westinghouse will install 34,000,000 kms of refrigeration pipes using Saudi oil taxes.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 3:10:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mike Pope,

Excellent and frightening article.

You will find that this forum primarily attracts posts from those who do not understand science, and do not trust those who foresee the horrendous impacts of global warming's forcing of massive climate change.

Thank you for your excellent summary of the many dimensions of sea level rise.

Tony kerr
Posted by Tony153, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:16:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those espousing RENEWABLES as the solution. Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the *problem* of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*.

He says:
1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
(*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste).
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 1:00:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy