RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Good idea. But don't worry, I'm sure I'll still find time to insult you specifically and personally for being such a clueless, ignorant moron and for stooging for the fossil fuel industry.people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.
Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.
A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangladesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.
why dont you just compose a general all purpose insult for the skeptics and put it in your signature? it would save you from excess typing and the rest of us from having to scan through to where you actually have a comment.
I do understand that your comment here has nothing to do with the points that I just raised. I was talking about the massive impacts of sea level rise that you were trying to minimize by claiming that everyone could just move. I pointed out that you're ignoring the enormous numbers of people living on or near the coastlines of the world and the trillions of dollars of essential infrastructure that is built along the coasts. What does the way "delta areas are deposited" have to do with that, numbnuts?you dont seem to understand how delta areas are deposited. it is a function of height above sea level, which is yet another negative feedback that are so common in nature while positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth.
brackish fresh water is associated with overuse of the aquafers(sic) not a few inches of sea level rise.
And you imagine that your unsupported claim means anything? LOL. You've already and repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance about almost everything so why would you think anyone is going to believe your unsupported word now.
Potential impacts of sea-level rise and climate change on coastal aquifers
The impacts of climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect both the yield and quality of important strategic water resources provided by coastal aquifer systems.
University of New South Wales
(excerpts)
Sea level rise contributing to saline intrusion or inundation of coastal freshwater resources is probably the most direct impact of climate change, particularly for shallow sandy aquifers along low-lying coasts. The natural groundwater equilibrium is also susceptible to changes in recharge and discharge associated with climate change.
Fresh water contaminated by seawater at the level of only 5% renders it unsuitable for many important uses including drinking water supplies; irrigation of crops, parks and gardens and sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems.
Sea-level rise and climate change can potentially impact groundwater resources in the following ways:
1. Seawater intrusion (progressive encroachment through the subsurface) and inland migration of the fresh-saline interface.
2. Seawater inundation (surface flow into low-lying areas) and flooding of unconfined aquifers by seawater.
3. Contamination of bores by storm surges and flooding of surface fittings.
4. Changing recharge due to variable rainfall and evapotranspiration resulting in an altered distribution of freshwater in the aquifer.
5. Changing discharge patterns that can generate waterlogged conditions and may impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems.
6. High water table impact on infrastructure including leakage to septic tanks, sewer systems, and basements and causing instability of swimming pools, tanks and other subsurface structures that are not anchored.
Another idiotic denier cult myth. Switching to renewable energy sources doesn't involve going back to living in caves or even "draconian energy cuts", it just means getting our energy needs from sources other than fossil fuels and it is doable.one of the things that the alarmists fail to publicize is how draconian the energy cuts would have to be to make any realistic change. hobbling the developed nations while allowing the rest of the world to continue producing CO2 is the surest way to delay the advacement(sic) of new technologies that are the only long term solution other than catastrophic population reduction and a return to bare sustenence(sic) survival.
Study claims 100 percent renewable energy possible by 2030
PhysOrg.com
January 19, 2011
(excerpts)
New research has shown that it is possible and affordable for the world to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, if there is the political will to strive for this goal. Mark Delucchi, one of the authors of the report, which was published in the journal Energy Policy, said the researchers had aimed to show enough renewable energy is available and could be harnessed to meet demand indefinitely by 2030.
A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
Scientific American
October 26, 2009
(excerpts)
...an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the worlds energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. ...Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric powerall of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.
One of the things that the head-in-the-sand deniers fail to realize is just how extremely draconian the changes to our world will be as a result of a business-as-usual policy towards carbon emissions.
State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario
The IPCC has declared man-made climate change "unequivocal." The hard part: trying to stop it
By David Biello
Scientific American
November 26, 2007
(excerpts)
...The IPCC's fourth and final assessment of the climate change problemknown as the Synthesis Reportcombines all of these reports and adds that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Although countries continue to debate the best way to address this finding, 130 nations, including the U.S., China, Australia, Canada and even Saudi Arabia, have concurred with it.
"The governments now require, in fact, that the authors report on risks that are high and 'key' because of their potentially very high consequence," says economist Gary Yohe, a lead author on the IPCC Synthesis Report. "They have, perhaps, given the planet a chance to save itself."
Among those risks:
Warming TemperaturesContinued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. On the positive side, fewer people will die from freezing temperatures and agricultural yield will increase in colder areas. The negatives include reduced crop production in the tropics and subtropics, increased insect outbreaks, diminished water supply caused by dwindling snowpack, and increasingly poor air quality in cities.
Heat WavesScientists are more than 90 percent certain that episodes of extreme heat will increase worldwide, leading to increased danger of wildfires, human deaths and water quality issues such as algal blooms.
Heavy RainsScientific estimates suggest that extreme precipitation eventsfrom downpours to whiteoutsare more than 90 percent likely to become more common, resulting in diminished water quality and increased flooding, crop damage, soil erosion and disease risk.
DroughtScientists estimate that there is a more than 66 percent chance that droughts will become more frequent and widespread, making water scarcer, upping the risk of starvation through failed crops and further increasing the risk of wildfires.
Stronger StormsWarming ocean waters will likely increase the power of tropical cyclones (variously known as hurricanes and typhoons), raising the risk of human death, injury and disease as well as destroying coral reefs and property.
BiodiversityAs many as a third of the species known to science may be at risk of extinction if average temperatures rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Sea Level RiseThe level of the world's oceans will rise, likely inundating low-lying land, turning freshwater brackish and potentially triggering widespread migration of human populations from affected areas.
"As temperatures rise, thermal expansion will lead to sea-level rise, independent of melting ice," says chemical engineer Lenny Bernstein, another lead author of the recent IPCC report. "The indications are that this factor alone could cause serious problems [and] ice-sheet melting would greatly accelerate [it]."
Such ice-sheet melting, which the IPCC explicitly did not include in its predictions of sea-level rise, has already been observed and may be speeding up, according to recent research that determined that the melting of Greenland's ice cap has accelerated to six times the average flow of the Colorado River. Research has also shown that the world has consistently emitted greenhouse gases at the highest projected levels examined and sea-level rise has also outpaced projections from the IPCC's last assessment in 2001.
"We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world."
Other recent findings include:
Carbon Intensity IncreasingThe amount of carbon dioxide per car built, burger served or widget sold had been consistently declining until the turn of the century. But since 2000, CO2 emissions have grown by more than 3 percent annually. This is largely due to the economic booms in China and India, which rely on polluting coal to power production. But emissions in the developed world have started to rise as well, increasing by 2.6 percent since 2000, according to reports made by those countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also recently argued that U.S. emissions may continue to increase as a result of growing energy demand.
Carbon Sinks SlowingThe world's oceans and forests are absorbing less of the CO2 released by human activity, resulting in a faster rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. All told, humanity released 9.9 billion metric tons (2.18 X 1013 pounds) of carbon in 2006 at the same time that the ability of the North Atlantic to take in such emissions, for example, dropped by 50 percent.
Impacts AcceleratingWarming temperatures have prompted earlier springs in the far north and have caused plant species to spread farther into formerly icy terrain. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low this year, covering just 1.59 million square miles and thus shattering the previous 2005 minimum of 2.05 million square miles.
"The observed rate of loss is faster than anything predicted," says senior research scientist Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're already set up for another big loss next year. We've got so much open water in the Arctic now that has absorbed so much energy over the summer that the ocean has warmed. The ice that grows back this autumn will be thin."
The negative consequences of such reinforcing, positive feedbacks (white ice is replaced by dark water, which absorbs more energy and prevents the formation of more white ice) remain even when they seemingly work in our favor.
© 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)