Ed:
I really respect you and your work in Cold Fusion but I think the whole process
has soured you. I am sure I don't need to remind you and everyone else on the
vortex that 2100 is 87 years away. I also think it is self evident that we
likely have NO idea what the world will be like in 87 years, what advances will
have been achieved, what world economics will look like or the state of energy
production. I also think I am safe in predicting that even our best guesses
are probably wildly off as is our current notion of what if anything we will be
able to do to combat weather changes..
I would also like to say to Ed personally that if LENR is ever shown to be
commercially viable the investment in the field will more than likely be like a
tsunami and advances will very likely occur at breakneck speeds. That in my
opinion is the way revolutions occur. They seldom sneak up on anyone. More
often they just sweep the landscape.
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Yes and we can see this being implemented in the movie "Water World".
Meanwhile, people have to be encouraged to move to higher ground. Rather than
insure houses in impacted areas to rebuild, why not pay only if the person
moves?
Ed
On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:48 PM, David Roberson wrote:
This response is a thought toward problem solving and not climate change
which I have agreed to avoid without proper provocation.
One way to handle habitation when water is the only area available is to
actually build floating structures or to build habitats that are underwater.
With the advancements in material sciences that are taking place, I can readily
visualize new building structures that use carbon fibers or perhaps silicon
ones that are super strong and flexible. It is not impossible for a large
structure or group of structures to be constructed that float with the tides.
If future generations figure out ways to commute around by air instead of
roadways, then this will be a natural progression. Besides, I suspect that
most work will be performed at home in the not so distance future and travel to
large city structures will be minimized.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
You don't. You build dikes and pump out the water, aka Holland. But you
start now to put the system in place as is being considered but not implemented
yet.
Ed
On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
How do you move the New York subway system or the Big Dig in Boston to
higher ground?
Cheers: Axil
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>
wrote:
Ed stated:
“The discussion now must be how do we respond to the loss of land
presently occupied by millions of people and important infrastructure.”
There is NO emergency… Sell the house or start moving important
infrastructure to higher ground.
*IF* the oceans do rise significantly, it won’t happen overnight… it
will take years and more likely, decades.
For important infrastructure, planning needs to be done to determine
how much time would be needed to relocate to higher ground.
For homeowners, pack up your stuff and MOVE! It is that simple for
them…
If you’re smart, sell the place now while beachfront property is
valuable… when your house is underwater it won’t be worth much!
And if all this does happen, it wouldn’t surprise me if those
homeowners think they are entitled to govt aid when they were too stupid to
just move.
-Mark
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Dave, I hate to get involved in another debate war, but the climate
change issue is too important to ignore. The ice is melting world-wide and the
average temperature is increasing. The glaciers are melting and the Arctic
regon is losing ice. This fact is acknowledged by all sides in the debate. The
question is only about the cause. Is the cause part of the natural cycle or is
it caused by man? Either way, the ocean is and will continue to rise and
people had better plan to move if they are in the affected areas.
I believe, like many other people, that if the main caused is CO2
production, we are too late to stop the process or even to slow it down.
Therefore, the discussion about CO2 is irrelevant. The discussion now must be
how do we respond to the loss of land presently occupied by millions of people
and important infrastructure. If you want to discuss something important, I
suggest you focus on this question.
Ed
On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:03 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I have not claimed to be an expert in climate change and merely have an
interest. I also have an interest in the well being of the other people on
the earth that we share. You can be assured that I would be very vocal about
climate change affecting us if I felt that it was a serious risk to mankind and
the remainder of the environment and that now was the only time to react. So
far I have only heard strong sounds emitted by the groups seeking immediate
action who conveniently leave out information that runs counter to their
beliefs. This is unbalanced and dangerous for those that will be left out of
progress due to wasted actions.
It is obvious that every time a storm hits, or a dry spell occurs, etc.
that it becomes blamed upon climate change. This is sheer nonsense and even
the climatologists try to distance their predictions to some degree from
immediate weather effects.
Are you convinced that there are not going to be many positive effects
due to future climate variations, whether caused by man or not? Would you have
the same beliefs if you were living toward the end of the last ice age? The
fear of change is an easy one to acquire, but should not dominate ones
thinking. I make an attempt to not panic in this case and have faith that we
will find a way to solve any major problems which occur and take advantage of
the good things that happen.
Have you given the Danish scientist Henrick Svensmark's theory about
cosmic rays being a major climate driver equal time? There is remarkable
correlation between what he has theorized and the climate of the earlier Earth.
Anyone who would strongly jump at the suggestion that the ocean levels will
rise 9 meters due to a theory of a couple of guys should be willing to analyze
what might be a better explanation.
My personal opinion is that now is the time to perform the needed
research and figure out what really is happening. The science is not settled
as some would like us to believe and the cost of immediate action is much too
great unless a truly catastrophic future is looming. I detect a mixed bag of
future effects that we have a significant amount of time to optimize.
Furthermore, as time progresses our sciences and technology will improve and
any mitigation will become that much easier to achieve. All of us need to have
a little more faith in future generations.
Jed, it makes little difference whether or not you believe me. We each
have our opinions that differ. I have given you a name to follow up upon of a
scientist that does have hand's on experience that I lack and who is well
respected. You can choose not to give consideration to the other side of this
discussion, but I know that you would be ahead to open your mind just a tiny
bit.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it
will become obvious?
Most experts say the changes are obvious now. And irrefutable. Perhaps
you disagree. I tend to believe experts who have done hands-on research, based
on my experience with cold fusion. Let me put it this way: If you have
published a paper on this subject I will take your views a lot more seriously.
- Jed
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2639/5568 - Release Date: 01/30/13
