I have seen only one estimate of total climate change related to
greenhouse gasses
, 2%, and cannot vouch for the accuracy. The only thing certain is change, and that includes global climate.
I've no idea how much or how soon, but change is coming.
Jake,
Are we taking into account the
Lay of the land
as it were.
For example, one of our lakes here in NM was sooooo low, (reported 80') Now, this summer, there was enough rain in the area, to cause a 20' rise over 3 weeks, now my guess is that if we have the same amount of water flow (in and out) it would take an ever increasing amount of time (there for water) to completely fill the lake. Islands dissappear and such.
As the water rises, flows past mountains and hills and into valleys.
Humm,
alt=
/>
Other than SF Bay getting larger and Florida and Louisiana disappearing everything remains pretty much status quo.
I think change is happening, however I think our contribution is minimal. It's a VERY complicated matter and nobody fully knows the answers. The problem is that the general public are sheep and easily scared. Scared people can be controlled, control is power. There is money and power in global warming and that's why it's a hot issue. I personally am more worried a/b a big cooling than a mild warming. The earth is an open system and continuously changing... a little more complex than what we modeled in class <img src=
alt=
/>
Speaking of sea levels. I know Jake simplified it quite a bit by not considering that area will change as levels rise. It was a good exercise in feasibility and got the wheels turning in my head. This would offset the total increase to some extent. I'm not even going to sit down and try to estimate the math. <img src=
alt=
/>
Pun intended? <img src=
alt=
/>
Me pun?... never <img src=
alt=
/>
Something else to worrieeeeeeee about, somebody told me a few weeks ago that the moon is leaving the earth's orbit!!!!!
Yes, at an alarming rate of 1
per year eeeeekkkksssss.
So, with less gravitonal pull from the moon, let the ice melt <img src=
alt=
/> in about 1,000,000 years, the water levels will be right back to where they are now. <img src=
alt=
" />
The best investment is almost always in reducing uncertainty.
Lets say you think there's a 95% chance of a sea level rise, which will cost $100 billion to mitigate. It's a good investment to spend $1 billion (i.e. 1%) in research if you can increase that certainty to 99% (or decrease it 90%).
Don't forget the time-value of money either. Say you can buy land in Antarctica for $1/acre today, and it will be worth $10,000/acre in 200 years when that 1 km of ice melts off. Is that a good investment?
$1 invested at 5% per year = $17,293 after 200 years. Of course, none of us will be around to enjoy it, but this is all about our children, and our children's children etc. right?
It is heartening to see that, while so many of us can't be bothered to save for our own retirement, we still want to spend so much money on problems that will only affect the next generations. I guess we're not as selfish as we think we are.
Do you get the water rights?
Lets say you think there's a 95% chance of a sea level rise, which will cost $100 billion to mitigate. It's a good investment to spend $1 billion (i.e. 1%) in research if you can increase that certainty to 99% (or decrease it 90%).
Don't forget the time-value of money either. Say you can buy land in Antarctica for $1/acre today, and it will be worth $10,000/acre in 200 years when that 1 km of ice melts off. Is that a good investment?
$1 invested at 5% per year = $17,293 after 200 years. Of course, none of us will be around to enjoy it, but this is all about our children, and our children's children etc. right?
It is heartening to see that, while so many of us can't be bothered to save for our own retirement, we still want to spend so much money on problems that will only affect the next generations. I guess we're not as selfish as we think we are.
I don't have any kids, may I have the $1 now, instead of investing?
alt=
/>
Other than SF Bay getting larger and Florida and Louisiana disappearing everything remains pretty much status quo.
I'm looking forward to my home on the hillside getting some beach front. The only downside is the boards hanging up on the condo below us.
Are we taking into account the
Lay of the land
as it were.
For example, one of our lakes here in NM was sooooo low, (reported 80') Now, this summer, there was enough rain in the area, to cause a 20' rise over 3 weeks, now my guess is that if we have the same amount of water flow (in and out) it would take an ever increasing amount of time (there for water) to completely fill the lake. Islands dissappear and such.
As the water rises, flows past mountains and hills and into valleys.
Humm,
I don't follow you - the melting doesn't have anything to do with rain and is simply a function of the volume of water contained in the ice that melts and contributes to the oceans.
I think he's eluding to what I said. As the water rises, it follows the low contours and surface area increases, so the quantity of water necessary to raise the first inch is less than the qty of water for the subsequent inches.
If you're in to reading about the
human induced climate change
, fka global warming, this guy says worst case is seven meters rise. Something to do with land masses rising when glaciers melt.
Are we taking into account the
Lay of the land
as it were.
For example, one of our lakes here in NM was sooooo low, (reported 80') Now, this summer, there was enough rain in the area, to cause a 20' rise over 3 weeks, now my guess is that if we have the same amount of water flow (in and out) it would take an ever increasing amount of time (there for water) to completely fill the lake. Islands dissappear and such.
As the water rises, flows past mountains and hills and into valleys.
Humm,
I don't follow you - the melting doesn't have anything to do with rain and is simply a function of the volume of water contained in the ice that melts and contributes to the oceans.
Correct, but as the water levels rise weather it be from melting ice or rain fall, the change of the shorelines will cause a need for more and more water to cause a rise in water level.
Does that make sence? More surface area, more water per inch in rise.
Are we taking into account the
Lay of the land
as it were.
For example, one of our lakes here in NM was sooooo low, (reported 80') Now, this summer, there was enough rain in the area, to cause a 20' rise over 3 weeks, now my guess is that if we have the same amount of water flow (in and out) it would take an ever increasing amount of time (there for water) to completely fill the lake. Islands dissappear and such.
As the water rises, flows past mountains and hills and into valleys.
Humm,
I don't follow you - the melting doesn't have anything to do with rain and is simply a function of the volume of water contained in the ice that melts and contributes to the oceans.
Correct, but as the water levels rise weather it be from melting ice or rain fall, the change of the shorelines will cause a need for more and more water to cause a rise in water level.
Does that make sence? More surface area, more water per inch in rise.
Yeah ... but geeesh...I only had a few minutes to contribute and I refuse to pull out my calculus books. Even then, you're probably talking about, at most, a 5% difference in the result (for which the amount of error is likely already more than that) since the oceans already consume 71% of the earth's surface.
It must be global warming, weve just had our strangest weather for 40 years which is a relevant time to study the weather patterns considering the worlds only been made for millions of years. <img src=
alt=
/>
Are we taking into account the
Lay of the land
as it were.
For example, one of our lakes here in NM was sooooo low, (reported 80') Now, this summer, there was enough rain in the area, to cause a 20' rise over 3 weeks, now my guess is that if we have the same amount of water flow (in and out) it would take an ever increasing amount of time (there for water) to completely fill the lake. Islands dissappear and such.
As the water rises, flows past mountains and hills and into valleys.
Humm,
I don't follow you - the melting doesn't have anything to do with rain and is simply a function of the volume of water contained in the ice that melts and contributes to the oceans.
Correct, but as the water levels rise weather it be from melting ice or rain fall, the change of the shorelines will cause a need for more and more water to cause a rise in water level.
Does that make sence? More surface area, more water per inch in rise.
Yeah ... but geeesh...I only had a few minutes to contribute and I refuse to pull out my calculus books. Even then, you're probably talking about, at most, a 5% difference in the result (for which the amount of error is likely already more than that) since the oceans already consume 71% of the earth's surface.
Geeeshhh Jake, get on the ball here. I would like to see your work. Include all terain (again spelling). You have untill 5:00 PM Friday.
<img src=
alt=
/>
Property in Canada. Lake ontario is about 247ft above sea level, so just bring your gps and buy land that is higher than that. Then when the waves of displaced people come washing over the country you can rent them land at a high price.
dont like cold weather. do like ocean. Bring it on.
remember, the earth is 70% race course
Somebody's watched
Waterworld
one too many times!!
only once and only for the boat.
A major consideration is that as the climate warms, the water mass absorbs much of that heat increase and
disguises
the effects until the water reaches a critical mass at which time there is a greater increase in expansion of that water mass which leads to ocean rise. Another real concern is that the monitoring of the gulf stream seems to indicate that it could be reaching a point where it will stop flowing north and if that should happen, although the planet will still
warm
the land mass serviced by the gulf stream will be covered in masses of ice, creating a very different world i.e. an ice age in the northern hemisphere and droughts and deserts in the southern?
remember, the earth is 70% race course
Somebody's watched
Waterworld
one too many times!!
only once and only for the boat.
BSEG, I've watched it more times than I care to admit, and only because of the boat!!! I Want that boat!!!!!!
Right on.... <img src=
alt=
/>
Waterworld
one too many times!!
only once and only for the boat.
BSEG, I've watched it more times than I care to admit, and only because of the boat!!! I Want that boat!!!!!!
You guys need to get out more often. What about Jean Tripplehorn? <img src=
alt=
/>
AMEN!
Waterworld
one too many times!!
only once and only for the boat.
BSEG, I've watched it more times than I care to admit, and only because of the boat!!! I Want that boat!!!!!!
You guys need to get out more often. What about Jean Tripplehorn? <img src=
alt=
/>
Well, Yeah, but of course I thought she was part of the Standard Equipment on the boat!!!!!!!! <img src=
alt=
/> <img src=
alt=
/>
alt=
/>
Other than SF Bay getting larger and Florida and Louisiana disappearing everything remains pretty much status quo.
Probably the lower 1/2 of Louisiana would go and leave the upper section... wait, hmmmm well thats why I have a boat right?
Clayton
(South Louisiana)
you'll be able to buy land in Fourchon dirt cheap...
and I wish Waterworld was a series.
A big part of the polar ice pack is on land. When (if) it melts the ocean will rise. Scientist are saying anything between 3ft and 300ft over the next 10 to 100 years. If it ALL melts its equal to 300 ft in ocean rise.
If you keep track of the research, some of the ice pack is melting at an alarming rate and f***ing up penguins and polar bears. Some of it is actually increasing.
So, what this tells me is that its more about weather change, not just gettting warmer, some places get warmer, some get colder.
The 300ft thing is pretty scary if you believe it.
Bill