hank roberts wrote:
> Seems there's ample precedent for assuming the rate people are saying
> can't happen, eh?
> Looking at the CO2 levels, the 'four feet per century' coincides more
> or less with the typcal end-of-ice-age period. And now that we've
> bumped CO2 up, it makes sense it'd continue, if not melt faster than
> it did just recently.
Not as simple as that. Back then there was a huge mass of ice in 2
northern hemisphere ice sheets. These have vanished already - and can't
melt further to negative volumes!
Maybe someone with better background can tell us how much of these past
sea level rises was due to changes in Greenland and Antarctica? Not that
it _proves_ anything, but it seems more relevant than the overall total.
> Seems to me much of what we can say is "very likely" --- for example
> pandemic influenza -- is just not something the market system has any
> way of dealing with, if only because the future discounting makes any
> action at all seem improvident to take at the present time.
You could say that the market system _is_ dealing with it, albeit
perhaps not in the way you would choose were you king of the world.
Would you shut down international travel (of birds?), or pump more money
into research on vaccines, or what?
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
