Let's say Hansen is right???? What do we do?

[ScienceRocks]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

 

[ScienceRocks]

How would you skeptics handle 4c+ of warming in 88 years? If you were the one to make sure that this nation did well.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Enjoy the warm weather and low food prices. Also enjoy the lower heating bills.

 

[anotherlife]

Isn't this current warming supposed to be like the previous cycle of it, when the diluted golf current lost its warming power and the ice-sheets returned to New York and Paris? I think that 90 % of geologic history saw a 25 C higher average global temperature than today, and the current period's cool spike is a result of the forming of the central American land bridge cutting off half the warming waters from the Pacific. Is this correct? If yes, then we have nothing to be afraid of, I think.

 

[SSDD]

If hansen is right then there will be a great deal of money to be made in ballistic umbrellas due to the droppings of the flying pigs.

 

[konradv]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Slowing down emissions isn't even considered?

 

[anotherlife]

If Hansen is right, then start buying up land at the strategic locations, that's the best thing that you can do, I think.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Enjoy the warm weather and low food prices. Also enjoy the lower heating bills.

Pattycake, you are truly an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Slowing down emissions isn't even considered?

If you think we should build a few dozen new nuclear power plants and reprocess the spent fuel sitting in cooling pools at current plants, I'm all for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't this current warming supposed to be like the previous cycle of it, when the diluted golf current lost its warming power and the ice-sheets returned to New York and Paris? I think that 90 % of geologic history saw a 25 C higher average global temperature than today, and the current period's cool spike is a result of the forming of the central American land bridge cutting off half the warming waters from the Pacific. Is this correct? If yes, then we have nothing to be afraid of, I think.

No, that is not correct. If you are speaking of the Younger Dryas, much differant starting points, and causes.

For analogs to current climatic events, you have to look at the beginnings of events like the PT extinction period and the PETM.

Point is, we have over 7 billion people on earth that depend on agriculture to live. As the climate gets more variable, the yeild from that agriculture gets more problamatic.

No, we are not going to die out as a species, but we may see a dramitic population reduction.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

1. Stop smoking; it's never too late;
2. Invest in green energy (Why do some conservatives worry so much about the fiscal debt and its impact on our kids and theirs, and less about the environmental pollution and its effect on the health of our kids and theirs?).
3. Colonize the moon and Mars. Expensive, you bet, doable, Gingrich thinks so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Some ideas. One, move the cities that are less than 25' above sea level. While a 3' sea level rise by 2100 (and it could be more), add a storm surge such as we saw in Jersey and New York on top of that, and you add several orders of magnitude more damage.

Big and long canals. Note that there are areas that seem to flood at exactly the same time that other areas go into drought. Also, areas such as the Nebraska Sand Hills could be flooded to add to aquifers.

Yes, we have to work on toughning our food crops. Genetic modifications, what ever it takes. And we have to consider the effects of a major drought where our last dust bowl was. Food crops with deep tight roots would be a help in that area.

Much greenhousing. Much stronger building codes in areas that are increasingly prone to tornados. Strengthen the grid, modernize it.

Reduce emmissions. Must do. Not just here but worldwide. And it won't be done without a series of major catastrophes.

 

[SSDD]

Some ideas. One, move the cities that are less than 25' above sea level. While a 3' sea level rise by 2100 (and it could be more), add a storm surge such as we saw in Jersey and New York on top of that, and you add several orders of magnitude more damage.

Question. How many models must fail before the reality of the abject failure of climate science sinks in with you? Did you hang on to a belief in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa for an abnormally long time as well?

 

[konradv]

Some ideas. One, move the cities that are less than 25' above sea level. While a 3' sea level rise by 2100 (and it could be more), add a storm surge such as we saw in Jersey and New York on top of that, and you add several orders of magnitude more damage.

Question. How many models must fail before the reality of the abject failure of climate science sinks in with you? Did you hang on to a belief in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa for an abnormally long time as well?

Models aren't data. Models may be flawed, but it is known that some gases absorb IR. Some of those gases are on the rise in the atmosphere for no known natural reason. Therefore, if they continue to rise, the retention of IR(heat) increases. That's how logical science works, not by taking a failure and assuming that all subsequent attempts will be failures. If man had used your reasoning, we'd never have flown or done a myriad of other things that were initially failures. Man persevered because the theories were sound. Tell me where the flaw in my theory is or shut up and pay attention while those who do know what they're talking about post.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

1. Stop smoking; it's never too late;
2. Invest in green energy (Why do some conservatives worry so much about the fiscal debt and its impact on our kids and theirs, and less about the environmental pollution and its effect on the health of our kids and theirs?).
3. Colonize the moon and Mars. Expensive, you bet, doable, Gingrich thinks so.

1. Only pot sometimes.
2. Good idea if it makes economic sense. I want clean air and water too.
3. Yep, space has limitless resources and expandension for our species. Staying on this planet is asking for trouble.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Some ideas. One, move the cities that are less than 25' above sea level. While a 3' sea level rise by 2100 (and it could be more), add a storm surge such as we saw in Jersey and New York on top of that, and you add several orders of magnitude more damage.

Big and long canals. Note that there are areas that seem to flood at exactly the same time that other areas go into drought. Also, areas such as the Nebraska Sand Hills could be flooded to add to aquifers.

Yes, we have to work on toughning our food crops. Genetic modifications, what ever it takes. And we have to consider the effects of a major drought where our last dust bowl was. Food crops with deep tight roots would be a help in that area.

Much greenhousing. Much stronger building codes in areas that are increasingly prone to tornados. Strengthen the grid, modernize it.

Reduce emmissions. Must do. Not just here but worldwide. And it won't be done without a series of major catastrophes.

You have some good points on this issue. Maybe some more R@D into developing technology that can reduce emissions is a good idea. Can't do it without going down that street.

 

[whitehall]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Let's say Hansen's personal wealth depends on the continuation of the grand extortion scheme called "global warming. Let's be reasonable about it. Ice core samples indicate incredible shifts in global weather. We even number the ice ages. Do global warming scientists think the world was created in the late 1800's when the industrial revolution started? There are reasonable weather theories that indicate that the earth is emerging from a geological span of time that included an ice age. Ten thousand years is nothing in geological terms but modern scientists who depend on left wing funding can't seem to think in geological terms. Isn't it reasonable for the US to table the global warming argument for ten or twenty years while we fix the economy or is global warming more of a political issue than a geological one?

 

[konradv]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Let's say Hansen's personal wealth depends on the continuation of the grand extortion scheme called "global warming. Let's be reasonable about it. Ice core samples indicate incredible shifts in global weather. We even number the ice ages. Do global warming scientists think the world was created in the late 1800's when the industrial revolution started? There are reasonable weather theories that indicate that the earth is emerging from a geological span of time that included an ice age. Ten thousand years is nothing in geological terms but modern scientists who depend on left wing funding can't seem to think in geological terms. Isn't it reasonable for the US to table the global warming argument for ten or twenty years while we fix the economy or is global warming more of a political issue than a geological one?

I think you just proved it's a political issue. The basic science is solid. We know the properties of CO2. We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together. The problem with discussing past cycles is, they're only valid if underlying conditions haven't changed. What's happening now is that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. That hasn't happened before, so citing the past doesn't really tell us much.

 

[Old Rocks]

Some ideas. One, move the cities that are less than 25' above sea level. While a 3' sea level rise by 2100 (and it could be more), add a storm surge such as we saw in Jersey and New York on top of that, and you add several orders of magnitude more damage.

Question. How many models must fail before the reality of the abject failure of climate science sinks in with you? Did you hang on to a belief in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa for an abnormally long time as well?

OK. Name the abject failures? I can name a few. Failure to realize that the affects on the Arctic would be far greater than even the most pessimistic model predicted. Failure to realize the effect of the loss of ice on the movements of the jett stream. Failure to predict the rapid melting of the permafrost, and how much GHGs that would release. Failure to predict how rapidly China and India's industry would develop, and the increase in GHGs and aerosols that would ential.

You see, the failures have not been that the scientists were too alarmist, but rather they were far too conservative in their estimates of the affects of the rise in global temperatures.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A few other failures
1# Not making a strong case for man's expansion into space. Could of easily made a strong case with all the resources out there. Sadly, they let the other side defined the issue and killed the program.
2# Failure to to focus on a cheap "space plane" that we could use cheaply to get back and forth from the surface to space. I sit here laughing at all the idiots talking about all resources on earth, and only earth alone. Let's be honest, we're NOT going to pick up 7 billion humans to the first world levels without doing so.
3# Too hell with using one big missile one time to go to the moon...Why not make a real ship that we can use over and over again? Long term it makes sense!

Some of the failings of nasa!