Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: People will argue that consumers cannot afford the additional hit to their pocket books. I think this misses the point, since they're already bearing the price in other, less obvious ways, including monetarily. Exactly. We often end up paying more than we would if the price was built in to the product, because we waste resources. When WWII came along, and there was a huge industrial mobilization underway for the war effort, it placed a great burden on the US federal budget. But I believe that all of that expenditure, which was no doubt wildly inefficient and directed towards all kinds of silly things, ended up serving as a massive stimulus, and the US did quite well economically after that. There was a lot of wasted money. Some of the goods produced, such as battleships, had little value as scrap after the war. There are two revealing quotes from the people planning war production. I don't recall who said them -- In response to a Senator asking whether the U.S. was producing too many tanks a general said, It is better to make a thousand too many than one not enough. I have read that toward the end of the war, the U.S. had more destroyers in the Pacific than the Japanese had airplanes. That was maniacal overproduction, I think. Another person writing years after the war said something like: We did not worry about how much it was costing. We figured the American people were more concerned about getting their sons and husbands back home alive than they were about saving money. That was a sensible attitude. If I had been a millionaire in 1942, I would far rather have lost every penny of my fortune than lose my son. The war did cause tax rates to go up to 90% for the richest people, a rate that continued to 1964: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates People did pay the dollar cost of the war. The national debt did not actually decline in absolute dollars, but as a percent of the GDP it fell considerably. That is the only meaningful measurement. It fell during the Great Depression, which surprises me. See: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/policy/debt-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-gdp-ratio.gif Here is the debt in inflation adjusted dollars, showing that it never actually declined: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/policy/debt-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-tax-brackets.gif Large, direct financial costs of WWII were still being paid from 1940 to 1964, with things like the Marshal plan, not to mention the Cold War and nuclear weapons production, so it is no surprise the debt did not decline. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Isn't the academic view just amazing? When confronted with malaise about Bangladesh treading water in decades to come, they go all 'chapter and verse' with specifics - yet, when asked about paying the bills, they drift off into magic and mysticism. Somehow it will get paid for. Thank you, Paul Krugman. War costs for oil? What costs? Saddam and Qaddafi were entirely willing to sell oil freely to anyone who could pay for it. These aren't 'wars for oil' , they are greedy wars for Empire, triggered by NeoCon Crooks and helpful Zionists ( who want the Middle East chopped up into manageable pieces). Major investment houses are saying (BusinessInsider) that alternative energy is a disaster as parity with newly found fossil fuels never comes. Jim Chanos ( famous short seller) is hitting on such companies. It is reported that thousands of wind turbines in the US are idle or broken - and the cost of fossil fuel backup generation doesn't get counted. Over at ZeroHedge, you can read the headline that a quarter of US jobs now pay BELOW the Federal poverty line. You think those folks are worried about the Florida coastline? Oh, and trillions of dollars worth of oil/gas may have just been discovered in Australia this week. BP expressed public doubt over Peak Oil predictions. We need entirely new technology.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: It is reported that thousands of wind turbines in the US are idle or broken . . . Where is this reported? Wind turbines cost $1.3 to $2 million each. I think it is highly unlikely the power companies leave billions of dollars of resources idle for lack of maintenance. - and the cost of fossil fuel backup generation doesn't get counted. Of course it is counted! The power companies publish their profit and loss statements. What is that supposed to mean? It works both ways. Wind turbines cover lost production from coal and nuclear plants when they are down for maintenance. With today's weather forecasting, power companies know days in advance when the wind farms will be at full power, and they schedule fossil fuel plant maintenance accordingly. Over at ZeroHedge, you can read the headline that a quarter of US jobs now pay BELOW the Federal poverty line. You think those folks are worried about the Florida coastline? People would make more money if we were doing something to prevent global warming. More, not less. Capital is sitting around unused, and people are unemployed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
You are right, Chris, mankind is being confronted by a growing list of basic problems. Deciding which one is the most important is hard. All of them have the potential to cause massive pain and suffering. What is worse, the nature of the problem is too technical and complex for most people to understand. This suggests still another problem. Has modern life become too complex for mankind to control? Are we nearing the end when the consequences of technology will overwhelm man's ability to respond properly? Or is this too pessimistic? I'm not suggesting a solution - just something else to worry about. Ed On Jan 31, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Isn't the academic view just amazing? When confronted with malaise about Bangladesh treading water in decades to come, they go all 'chapter and verse' with specifics - yet, when asked about paying the bills, they drift off into magic and mysticism. Somehow it will get paid for. Thank you, Paul Krugman. War costs for oil? What costs? Saddam and Qaddafi were entirely willing to sell oil freely to anyone who could pay for it. These aren't 'wars for oil' , they are greedy wars for Empire, triggered by NeoCon Crooks and helpful Zionists ( who want the Middle East chopped up into manageable pieces). Major investment houses are saying (BusinessInsider) that alternative energy is a disaster as parity with newly found fossil fuels never comes. Jim Chanos ( famous short seller) is hitting on such companies. It is reported that thousands of wind turbines in the US are idle or broken - and the cost of fossil fuel backup generation doesn't get counted. Over at ZeroHedge, you can read the headline that a quarter of US jobs now pay BELOW the Federal poverty line. You think those folks are worried about the Florida coastline? Oh, and trillions of dollars worth of oil/gas may have just been discovered in Australia this week. BP expressed public doubt over Peak Oil predictions. We need entirely new technology.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I wrote: It works both ways. Wind turbines cover lost production from coal and nuclear plants when they are down for maintenance. Also, wind is sometimes more reliable and slower to vary than fossil fuel. See: http://www.awea.org/learnabout/utility/Wind-Integration-and-Reliability.cfm QUOTES: . . . In contrast to the large, abrupt, and often unpredictable changes in electricity demand and in conventional generator output, wind output changes tend to be gradual and predictable. When wind turbines are spread over large areas, it typically takes an hour or more for a significant change in wind output to occur . . . . . . Just over a month ago, wind vividly demonstrated its important contribution to grid reliability by keeping the lights on for millions of Texans while over 50 coal and natural gas plants experienced unexpected outages due to unusually cold weather. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: What is worse, the nature of the problem is too technical and complex for most people to understand. In the past, all problems were too complex for anyone to understand. In 1700 people did not even know that oxygen exists, and yet they ran giant cities, iron mills and so on. The trend is toward better understanding. We are learning more and more about our problems, and we have Big Data to account for things. (Big Data meaning more bytes of data than there grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth.) This suggests still another problem. Has modern life become too complex for mankind to control? In many important ways, modern life is simpler than life used to be, and more comprehensible. Many things that were completely beyond our control are now well understood and controlled. Many things that were unpredictable are now predicted. Such as the weather. In 1938 a giant storm destroyed Long Island and killed 600 of people because no one knew it was coming. Last year's storm killed very few people because everyone could see it was coming. Are we nearing the end when the consequences of technology will overwhelm man's ability to respond properly? Or is this too pessimistic? Much too pessimistic, and totally at odds with the trends of history. The last 400 years of technological and scientific progress have given us God-like knowledge and control over nature. There is no reason to think this trend will not continue. Our ability to respond has increased beyond all imagination. There is not a single technical reason why we cannot: * Eliminate fossil fuels and CO2 production, in a generation. * Reduce other pollution by a factor of 10. * Recycle most solid waste, with robot labor. * Transfer agriculture to indoor factories, freeing up land. We could produce ALL of the plant food consumed by people and domestic animals in North America in an area the size of greater New York City. By the time we got 10% toward that goal, the cost of food would be cheaper than it is from today's outdoor agriculture. The technological solutions already exist, even without cold fusion. We lack only the will and the imagination to use them. All of the environmental problems we face -- and all poverty and lack of education -- are caused by human failings. By foolish greed, fear, politics and lack of imagination. Science and engineering have not failed us. We have failed to use the fruits of our imagination. We have failed to use people's talents and skills. Since we managed to solve countless problems in the past, I am certain we can solve these problems now. I am not sure we *will* solve them, but I am sure that we can. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: What is worse, the nature of the problem is too technical and complex for most people to understand. In the past, all problems were too complex for anyone to understand. In 1700 people did not even know that oxygen exists, and yet they ran giant cities, iron mills and so on. That is true Jed, but the people making the decisions then were not the ordinary people. The decision makers were generally educated and were the most informed of the population. Now the ordinary person with their limited education elects people of equal ignorance to make decisions, at least in the US. The trend is toward better understanding. We are learning more and more about our problems, and we have Big Data to account for things. (Big Data meaning more bytes of data than there grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth.) Yes, a lot more information is available. Unfortunately, it is too much for most people to acquire. Even in the CF field, most people have no awareness about all that is known. When the time comes to make basic decisions about how this phenomenon is developed, you can be sure most of the understanding will be ignored, as is presently the case. This suggests still another problem. Has modern life become too complex for mankind to control? In many important ways, modern life is simpler than life used to be, and more comprehensible. For you maybe. I once could take a car apart and reassemble it. Now I have no idea how a car functions and cannot even make minor repairs. Have you ever tried to repair a computer? Life is simpler only because automatic controls keep the house at constant temperature, I can buy fresh food in all seasons, and I do not have to leave the house to be entertained. However, if the power goes off, I'm totally lost. If I lived in a high-rise apartment in a city, I would be trapped. The storm Sandy showed just how essential this one energy is to modern civilization. We are putting an increasing number of eggs in one basket, which makes life simpler as long is it functions as expected. Many things that were completely beyond our control are now well understood and controlled. Many things that were unpredictable are now predicted. Yes, many things can be predicted. The problem is getting people to respond to the predictions. Such as the weather. In 1938 a giant storm destroyed Long Island and killed 600 of people because no one knew it was coming. Last year's storm killed very few people because everyone could see it was coming. Being able to see the weather from space has made a big difference. Fewer people die, which is good. Nevertheless, people build homes where they will be flooded or blown away even when this fate is certain. Are we nearing the end when the consequences of technology will overwhelm man's ability to respond properly? Or is this too pessimistic? Much too pessimistic, and totally at odds with the trends of history. Which trends? Yes, mankind in local areas has advanced and in other areas has regressed. It all depends on where you live. The last 400 years of technological and scientific progress have given us God-like knowledge and control over nature. That is true. But as they say, power creates arrogant, God-like power creates God-like arrogance. There is no reason to think this trend will not continue. Our ability to respond has increased beyond all imagination. There is not a single technical reason why we cannot: The technical reason is in the human brain and its limitations. We have amazing tools and understanding. Our brain applies these tools and understanding. I'm observing that most brains do not have the ability to do this without causing problems. Take the mortgage melt down in 2008 and following, do you think any intelligence was used by the financial industry. Yet these people almost collapsed the financial system of the West, which has led to the present financial situation. Stupid people now have the power to stop civilization in its tracks. * Eliminate fossil fuels and CO2 production, in a generation. You are assuming that CF is accepted and it actually works as expected. * Reduce other pollution by a factor of 10. Yes, reduced pollution is possible in some areas but not in all. As long as oil is extracted and transported, it will produce local pollution. As long as fission power is used, it will create local pollution. These are obvious predictions you ignore. * Recycle most solid waste, with robot labor. I agree, this is being done increasingly. * Transfer agriculture to indoor factories, freeing up land. We could produce ALL of the plant food consumed by people and domestic animals in North America in an area the size of greater New York City. By the time we got 10% toward that goal, the cost of
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Current headline at BusinessInsider : 80% of French Think Their Country Is Bankrupt. Clearly, these suffering people would benefit from more global warming solutions. Likewise the growing number of Spanish people now living on the street. Or the British people who are burning second hand books to keep warm. Utililies will use whatever source is cheapest. Alternative energy types are demanding demotion bonds be posted so that the embarrasment of dead windmills can be stopped. Nat gas supplies are killing hopes of alternative energy parity and Wall Street knows it.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Clearly, these suffering people would benefit from more global warming solutions. Likewise the growing number of Spanish people now living on the street. Or the British people who are burning second hand books to keep warm. I doubt they are burning books, but in any case these problems are caused by lack of work and bad government policy, not by lack of money or resources. If the UK were to invest more in alternative energy it would help employ more people and it would lessen this problem, not make it worse. Nat gas supplies are killing hopes of alternative energy parity and Wall Street knows it. I do not think much of Wall Street's wisdom, given the 2008 crash and the fact that not a single industrial corporation has invested in cold fusion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: That is true Jed, but the people making the decisions then were not the ordinary people. The decision makers were generally educated and were the most informed of the population. That is true now, as well. Furthermore, people in the past often made dreadful mistakes. See, for example, the book British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One. Now the ordinary person with their limited education elects people of equal ignorance to make decisions, at least in the US. That has not changed since Colonial times. Which trends? Yes, mankind in local areas has advanced and in other areas has regressed. It all depends on where you live. Life has improved just about everywhere compared to 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. The long term trends are good. That is true. But as they say, power creates arrogant, God-like power creates God-like arrogance. Mankind has never lacked arrogance. If anything, I believe it correlates with ignorance. Stupid people now have the power to stop civilization in its tracks. They have always had this power, and they often did stop it in its tracks. See the book I mentioned, British Butchers . . . Here is a list of recent accidents caused by stupid people who made simple mistakes that might easily have been prevented: Destruction of the Three Mile Island reactor (1979) Challenger explosion (1986) Hubble telescope mirror shaped wrong (1990) Destruction of the Connecticut Yankee reactor (1997) Intelligence estimates that there were WMD in Iraq (2003) Costa Concordia shipwreck (2011) * Eliminate fossil fuels and CO2 production, in a generation. You are assuming that CF is accepted and it actually works as expected. No, fossil fuels could be eliminated even without cold fusion. If we had begun serious efforts in 1980 they would be gone now. * Reduce other pollution by a factor of 10. Yes, reduced pollution is possible in some areas but not in all. As long as oil is extracted and transported, it will produce local pollution. As long as fission power is used, it will create local pollution. These are obvious predictions you ignore. I do not ignore them. I said that we can eliminate oil. For transportation we can replace it with synthetic liquid fuel, or hydrogen, which causes little pollution. However, a lot of food is used for industrial purposes to make plastic and industrial chemicals. Ethanol is one obvious example. Ethanol is an energy sink. It takes more fossil fuel to make it than you get out of it. It is a gift to OPEC. The technological solutions already exist, even without cold fusion. We lack only the will and the imagination to use them. Yes, that is EXACTLY my point. The problem is in the human brain. The human brain has not changed. If we could overcome problems in the past, it stands to reason we can overcome them now. The problem is not limitations of technology - we are seeing the limitations of the brain. Those limitations have not changed. They were overcome in the past and they can be overcome now. People are no better or worse than they ever were. They are not smarter or stupider. Human nature does not change. People are domesticated primates, capable of an unthinkably broad range of behavior. We are noble in reason; infinite in faculty; in apprehension like a god. The paragon of animals! We have failed to use the fruits of our imagination. We have failed to use people's talents and skills. Yes, and how can this problem be solved? By the same methods we solved it in the past. By demonstrating technology, publishing, and persuasion. And by luck. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
metro.co.uk Jan 5, 2013, Pensioners burn books to stay warm. So, the investment in alternative energy would create more jobs? Like polishing mirrors? Or do your robots do that after the coal miners/ railroad workers/utility boiler feeders go on the dole? Dismissing Wall Street opinion on alternative energy investment leaves me a bit speechless - as the very manifestation of the mindset condemned in others at the start of this thread. Goes full circle, I guess.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Dismissing Wall Street opinion on alternative energy investment leaves me a bit speechless - as the very manifestation of the mindset condemned in others at the start of this thread. Goes full circle, I guess. Business investment is not an exact science. It is not really a science at all. It is more like professional gambling such as poker. You cannot compare it to people finding fossilized coral. Running a business does take expertise. You would think that with all the people out there knowledgeable about business, someone would invest in cold fusion. But history shows that business people often miss opportunities. For many years no one in California would invest in the transcontinental railroad project, or help push Washington to fund it. Even after Lincoln got on board they had trouble finding investors. That turned out to be the most lucrative investment in history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:54, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Take the mortgage melt down in 2008 and following, do you think any intelligence was used by the financial industry. Yet these people almost collapsed the financial system of the West, which has led to the present financial situation. Stupid people now have the power to stop civilization in its tracks. Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the financial collapse. They had an implicit faith in the assurances of free-market ideology and laissez-faire, which they had unquestioningly imbibed since childhood, and they based their rent-seeking behavior on those assurances with religious zeal. What they lacked was simple common sense and concrete incentives to avoid actions that are harmful to society. Eric
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I have played the Market ( profitably). I never gamble or play poker. Even Malkiel in his Random Walk thesis considered that there could be exceptions (closed end funds, for example). Cold Fusion is an effect that needs to be a practical product and large companies might hate the idea, anyway. I wanted to spend my retirement with my own lab derived from ebay but now, I'm screwed - as many others are. Work 'til you call in dead is the new regime. Buena Suerte, Mr Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the financial collapse. They had an implicit faith in the assurances of free-market ideology and laissez-faire . . . What they lacked was simple common sense and concrete incentives to avoid actions that are harmful to society. I agree! That is also how I would describe the political and military leaders who started World War I. See also Tuchman's book, The March of Folly. I have high regard for capitalism and the free market. But, as I said, like all things human these institutions have weaknesses. They can fail, sometimes disastrously. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Jan 31, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:54, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Take the mortgage melt down in 2008 and following, do you think any intelligence was used by the financial industry. Yet these people almost collapsed the financial system of the West, which has led to the present financial situation. Stupid people now have the power to stop civilization in its tracks. Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the financial collapse. They had an implicit faith in the assurances of free-market ideology and laissez-faire, which they had unquestioningly imbibed since childhood, and they based their rent- seeking behavior on those assurances with religious zeal. What they lacked was simple common sense and concrete incentives to avoid actions that are harmful to society. Does what you describe not represent stupid behavior? People can be self-serving, greedy, and without moral compass, but when they do something that shoots themselves in the foot, I call this stupid. Ed Eric
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the financial collapse. . . . Does what you describe not represent stupid behavior? Yes! It is both smart and stupid, at the same time. Most wars are like that. People who are brilliant in some ways, in some situations, can be stupid in others. Huizenga is a good example. Intelligence is not unified entity. It does not apply equally to all subjects. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I make a distinction between intelligence and stupidly. The human mind has many features that can exist at the same time, as you note. For example, a person can be insane yet brilliant. A person can be stupid yet a savant. Society has no ability to make a distinction. As a result, stupid, insane people are given power because they are intelligent. For years, being a banker was considered honest, but sometimes heartless. Now the banker is seen as both heartless and dishonest. How did this happen? How does society change this way? Ed On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the financial collapse. . . . Does what you describe not represent stupid behavior? Yes! It is both smart and stupid, at the same time. Most wars are like that. People who are brilliant in some ways, in some situations, can be stupid in others. Huizenga is a good example. Intelligence is not unified entity. It does not apply equally to all subjects. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
It wasn't the free market that failed with the mortgage meltdown. It was the federal reserve and the federal government which together created a moral hazard. Peter Schiff had it right, back in 2006. Artificially low interest rates promote consumption and distract from savings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw Craig On 01/31/2013 03:50 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Jan 31, 2013, at 8:54, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Take the mortgage melt down in 2008 and following, do you think any intelligence was used by the financial industry. Yet these people almost collapsed the financial system of the West, which has led to the present financial situation. Stupid people now have the power to stop civilization in its tracks. Some of the world's smartest minds worked together to produce the financial collapse. They had an implicit faith in the assurances of free-market ideology and laissez-faire, which they had unquestioningly imbibed since childhood, and they based their rent-seeking behavior on those assurances with religious zeal. What they lacked was simple common sense and concrete incentives to avoid actions that are harmful to society. Eric
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
You can run this through Google translate here: http://translate.google.com Insert the URL into the box at the top of the screen: http://www.nhk.or.jp/gendai/kiroku/detail_3301.html The Google Chrome on-line translate does not seem to be working. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
That is frightening. Now get this, there really *is* a conspiracy to cover up climate change: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html Remarkable!
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Guys, I am confident that you realize that this is just a fairy tale. What better way to scare everyone than to suggest scenarios that are far beyond reason. Of course it might be possible, but it is also possible that the sun will explode, an asteroid will destroy life on earth, a giant volcano will freeze us before the ice melts, and about a million other things. My money is on the realization that most likely none of the above will occur and that life will be pretty much as usual for the next 100 years. If you want something real to worry about, keep your eyes upon the nations that now have and will soon have nuclear weapons. This is truly frightening. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 10:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 You can run this through Google translate here: http://translate.google.com Insert the URL into the box at the top of the screen: http://www.nhk.or.jp/gendai/kiroku/detail_3301.html The Google Chrome on-line translate does not seem to be working. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Huh, no. We are dead serious that this is a likely scenario. Much more likely than a nuclear war. 2013/1/30 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Guys, I am confident that you realize that this is just a fairy tale. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
If the level is going to rise by that amount, then I would expect to see a meter rise every decade, which is not happening. Someone needs to calculate the amount of heat energy required to melt all of that ice and realize that this must come in addition to the heat that causes the air temperature to rise. Don't you think that all that newly melted ice would behave like placing ice cubes into warm water? I suspect that you were being a bit sarcastic in your response. Nuclear war has almost occurred at least one documented time when a single guy would not agree to launch against his orders. And, this was when the countries that might initiate it were much more reasonable than those that now control the trigger. I will be pleasantly surprised if a nuclear exchange does not occur within the next 50 years, and we can only hope that it will be restricted to the local region. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 11:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 Huh, no. We are dead serious that this is a likely scenario. Much more likely than a nuclear war. 2013/1/30 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Guys, I am confident that you realize that this is just a fairy tale. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
The consequences of this sea level rise are not that bad. All the coastal cities around the world will need to be moved upland a bit. This will generate plenty of construction jobs. It’s time for a new start anyway. We need to get rid of all that old art and architecture. Sarcasm intended: Axil On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: There was a disturbing report on the NHK program Close Up Gendai: http://www.nhk.or.jp/gendai/kiroku/detail_3301.html Researchers in Antarctica have mapped the ice and land under it with radar and other techniques. They have found there is a great deal more ice than previously thought and it is more likely to melt. Prof. Andrea Dutton, U. Florida, looked at fossilized coral reefs and determined that the last time Antarctica, Greenland and Iceland melted, the sea level rose ~9 m. That's about 6 m from Antarctica and 3 m from the northern ice. Melting ice at the North Pole will not raise sea levels because that ice is floating. The latest projections indicate this might happen by the year 2100, because of global warming caused by CO2. 9 m is a far higher sea level increase than any previous estimate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
There's already been one nuclear war. It was a bit one-sided.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I forgot about that one! That might be considered a nuclear end of war. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 12:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 There's already been one nuclear war. It was a bit one-sided.
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
If you kick sand in the face of the skinny guy on the beach, and he gets up and kicks your ass, that's your problem! When you pick a fight, you'd better be ready to take the consequences. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 There's already been one nuclear war. It was a bit one-sided.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If the level is going to rise by that amount, then I would expect to see a meter rise every decade, which is not happening. That is nonsense. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. You need to read the papers. That is a bit like saying that if a critical mass of uranium will explode with 20 kt of force, half that mass will explode with 10 kt. It does not work that way. Many phenomena are not linear. These conclusions may be incorrect but to dismiss them as a fairy tale is unscientific, and disrespectful to the researchers. That is a lot like the way people who know nothing about cold fusion dismiss cold fusion results. People who know the least are usually the ones who are quickest to dismiss a conclusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Why would you think that these guys have better capability than the IPCC group that predicts far less sea level rise? Do they have some magic dust or a new improved crystal ball? On occasions a new concept is revealed which no one previously thought of that results in enormous change. I am not one to say that what you suggest is not possible, but I would put a large bet on the likelihood that it will not come about. We need to think through circumstances and not jump like scared rabbits at every broken twig. OK, I admit that the climate change might not be linear as you point out. So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it will become obvious? If we must wait 50 years, then the rate of change required becomes far more difficult to believe. Also, you make a comparison that is nonsense. It takes time to melt ice as well as a lot of energy. Have you looked at the temperature in Antarctica recently? I suggest you make a summer visit to the interior and take off your coat for a while if you want to see how quick the ice is going to melt. Now, where is the extra energy coming from that is going to turn this ice into water? The task that these guys have taken upon themselves is miles above their heads. Did you carefully read the article and find an out just in case their theory is not accurate? That type of nonsense is typical of the propaganda being spewed by folks with an agenda of some kind. We are not required to take seriously every statement made by every researcher Jed as that is the best recipe I know of leading to paralysis due to overload of your mind. Nothing would ever be accomplished if intelligent people are incapable of making decisions as to what they think has credibility and what does not. The burden is upon the ones that make such fantastic claims to prove that they are right, until that time we are under no obligation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If the level is going to rise by that amount, then I would expect to see a meter rise every decade, which is not happening. That is nonsense. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. You need to read the papers. That is a bit like saying that if a critical mass of uranium will explode with 20 kt of force, half that mass will explode with 10 kt. It does not work that way. Many phenomena are not linear. These conclusions may be incorrect but to dismiss them as a fairy tale is unscientific, and disrespectful to the researchers. That is a lot like the way people who know nothing about cold fusion dismiss cold fusion results. People who know the least are usually the ones who are quickest to dismiss a conclusion. - Jed
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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
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
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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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. What makes you think that? We could stop using fossil fuel in 20 years. If we had started serious efforts in 1980 we would not be using any now. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my book, we could use reforestation and cold fusion to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We could do this at the same rate we are now adding it, or at a greater rate. This might call for a gigantic effort on the scale of WWII armament production, but it would be cheaper than abandoning our cities. Once the CO2 is gone, the problem should reverse itself. I think there are many ways to fix this problem. I do not see why you -- or anyone -- thinks it is too late. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
The problem is potentially a run-away warming due to melting of the permafrost. There are tons of CO2 sequestered there.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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. I disagree. The people studying this problem, such as Prof. Dutton of F.U., strike me as good scientists. Most of them seem objective, and willing to look at critiques of their work. Their data looks solid to me. I do not understand why you have such a low opinion of these researchers. I suppose you are biased against them by your own opinion that they are wrong. I am not particularly capable of evaluating the data on my own, but I can see that we have recently experienced extraordinarily hot weather and extreme weather. I know that nearly every qualified expert in climate and weather ascribes this trend to CO2. I know from cold fusion that people who work directly in a field with hands-on access to the data and instruments usually know far more than outside critics, so I believe the experts. In other words, a professor who spends years or decades studying fossilized coral knows much more about that other people do. People who spend a year working in Antarctica know much more about the ice there than armchair experts do. So I'll take their word for it over yours, or over the Kotch brothers'. It is obvious that every time a storm hits, or a dry spell occurs, etc. that it becomes blamed upon climate change. This is not a bit obvious. This is nonsense. Experts in climate have often said that a particular storm is normal for this time of year and is no indication of global warming. It may be that non-experts and members of the public claim that every severe storm is caused by global warming, but climatologists say nothing of the sort and you have no business putting words into their mouths. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil fuels. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially in China. It is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning coal, natural gas, and oil. The other sources of power are being developed as fast as possible, but they are not keeping up, even in the US. As you can see, the political will does not exist to do anything heroic. The will is not even present to develop cold fusion, which in any case would require years before it had any impact at all. Meanwhile, the effects of the present warming are creating positive feedback to the warming process, as Terry points out. The release of CH4 is the main problem. We can wish for a different reality, but I suggest we need to work with the one we have. People need to stop wasting political and emotional energy fighting the wrong war. We need to focus on solving the consequences of warming. For example, billions of dollars are now being spent to rebuild homes on the East coast that will be washed away again in our life time. When and how do people decide to move their homes to a safer location? People had better start thinking in these terms soon. I thought ahead and now live at 8500 feet. :-) Ed On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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. What makes you think that? We could stop using fossil fuel in 20 years. If we had started serious efforts in 1980 we would not be using any now. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my book, we could use reforestation and cold fusion to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We could do this at the same rate we are now adding it, or at a greater rate. This might call for a gigantic effort on the scale of WWII armament production, but it would be cheaper than abandoning our cities. Once the CO2 is gone, the problem should reverse itself. I think there are many ways to fix this problem. I do not see why you -- or anyone -- thinks it is too late. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, it makes little difference whether or not you believe me. We each have our opinions that differ. Yes, but my opinion is shared by nearly every expert, so it carries more weight than yours. And by the way this is NOT a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html A fallacious appeal to authority would be pointing to Richard Garwin or the editors of Scientific American as experts in cold fusion. They are not qualified to address the issue. 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. I can give you the name of an expert electrochemist who has looked carefully at the cold fusion results and yet who says that every positive experiment is a mistake: Dieter Britz. You can ALWAYS find a small number of academic experts who dissent from the majority evaluation. I know hundreds of other electrochemists who disagree with Britz. He is, in fact, the only electrochemist I know who has read more than 1 or 2 papers on cold fusion and yet who is not convinced. He is an outlier, in short. I expect Henrick Svensmark is also an outlier. He probably has no credibility among climate experts. That does not mean he is wrong, but that would be a safe bet. People often think that lesson of cold fusion is that experts cannot be trusted and people from outside conventional science with wild ideas are more credible than experts. That is a romantic notion, but the real lesson of cold fusion is exactly the opposite of that. As Fleischmann said we are painfully conventional people. Of course history does show that sometimes untrained outsiders with wild ideas are sometimes correct, and the experts are all wrong. That can happen. It did not happen in the case of cold fusion, and I expect it has not happened in the case of climatology. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Ed said, People had better start thinking in these terms soon. I thought ahead and now live at 8500 feet. :-) I'm at about 5500'. might be beachfront in a few decades! J -mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil fuels. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially in China. It is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning coal, natural gas, and oil. The other sources of power are being developed as fast as possible, but they are not keeping up, even in the US. As you can see, the political will does not exist to do anything heroic. The will is not even present to develop cold fusion, which in any case would require years before it had any impact at all. Meanwhile, the effects of the present warming are creating positive feedback to the warming process, as Terry points out. The release of CH4 is the main problem. We can wish for a different reality, but I suggest we need to work with the one we have. People need to stop wasting political and emotional energy fighting the wrong war. We need to focus on solving the consequences of warming. For example, billions of dollars are now being spent to rebuild homes on the East coast that will be washed away again in our life time. When and how do people decide to move their homes to a safer location? People had better start thinking in these terms soon. I thought ahead and now live at 8500 feet. :-) Ed On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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. What makes you think that? We could stop using fossil fuel in 20 years. If we had started serious efforts in 1980 we would not be using any now. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my book, we could use reforestation and cold fusion to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We could do this at the same rate we are now adding it, or at a greater rate. This might call for a gigantic effort on the scale of WWII armament production, but it would be cheaper than abandoning our cities. Once the CO2 is gone, the problem should reverse itself. I think there are many ways to fix this problem. I do not see why you -- or anyone -- thinks it is too late. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil fuels. I am sorry but this is nonsense. The Chinese are presently building 30 nuclear power reactors, and they are installing roughly that much wind power. If the U.S., Europeans and the Japanese were to build reactors, wind and solar at that rate, and if all First World countries were to aggressively develop plug-in electric cars and pure electric cars in crash projects, within 20 years we could reduce fossil fuel use by a large margin. We could export this technology to the Third World. We could also begin massive reforestation projects to capture CO2. We could also help Third World people replace kerosene illumination with solar powered LED lights. These projects would cost a great deal of money but they would also have many benefits aside from reversing global warming. There are countless other ways we could rapidly reduce fossil fuel use. We lack only the will, not the means. Even without cold fusion we could stop the threat of global warming in a generation, and make a huge profit doing it. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially in China. It is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning coal, natural gas, and oil. This is simply not true. It hasn't been true since commercial nuclear power was developed. There is a huge supply of uranium in the world. In France, they get 80% of their electricity from it! Fukushima demonstrated the risks and disadvantages of nuclear power. Obviously it is not ideal. Nothing is. It is better than continuing with fossil fuel and raising the sea level by 9 m in 80 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
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.netwrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
It is OK Ed. I believe that the oceans are rising to some degree. I also feel that the climate is getting warmer as you and many others consider well proven. My hang up is in timing and figuring out the best course of action to follow. There is little doubt that many will be displaced if the ocean levels rise to the level that is expected, but I am hesitant to accept a new theory that the levels will increase by 9 meters in the time frame suggested. I consider a quick action to be dangerous at this time and might well put many others in peril due to inefficiency. And you are right, it is too important to ignore. It might be that I am overconfident in the improvements to technology that I have witnessed during my lifetime. Things that appeared impossible just a short while ago now are common. When I was younger radios were constructed from tubes which performed the tasks that were considered necessary at the time. Now, if it does not fit into your hand and take pictures, it should be trashed. Of course this is a result of the solid state revolution. A similar story could be told about computers, or most other devices and technologies that have improved relentlessly over the years. In my vision, I see the global climate change problem in similar terms. At the moment, it looks hopeless since we do not see much opportunity for a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted or the likelihood for future improvements. But, I see beyond that. If Mr. Rossi and the many other members of our field come through, then the problem caused by mankind will vanish in a hurry. And, even if LENR does not become our savior, I firmly believe something else will come to the rescue. I may have made this point before and I believe it will come to pass. So, if you shared my optimistic beliefs I think that you would understand the reason for my position in this matter. Why panic if you are not too worried about the future? Perhaps my outlook is related to the fact that I have eventually been able to solve just about every difficult technical problem that has been assigned to me. This requires the ability to follow the faintest of clues as I have put together a coherent model of the problem at hand, always checking to ensure that new facts fit into their proper place. One must then be prepared to rebuild the model when it fails to perform as expected. Jed has written at least one book which demonstrates great confidence in the future of mankind. He shows excellent incite into how we might be living and enjoying a life of leisure as a result of advancements in science that he predicts. So, I have to wonder why he now seems to be so concerned about issues that should have technical solutions. It is not obvious to me why this disconnect exists. Perhaps that is the root of the disagreement between us; I believe that he actually sees the future while he is uncertain of his vision. I see little reason to extend this discussion since it tends to be divisive and each side has strong opinions that are unlikely to be modified. I promise to remain silent unless someone baits me with a statement that is far out of reality such as a 9 meter sea level rise in 90 years. That is what it took this time. Maybe next time I will await until it becomes 100 meters. 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 3:21 pm 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
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
It doesn't have to melt, just slide off into the drink. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 Why would you think that these guys have better capability than the IPCC group that predicts far less sea level rise? Do they have some magic dust or a new improved crystal ball? On occasions a new concept is revealed which no one previously thought of that results in enormous change. I am not one to say that what you suggest is not possible, but I would put a large bet on the likelihood that it will not come about. We need to think through circumstances and not jump like scared rabbits at every broken twig. OK, I admit that the climate change might not be linear as you point out. So, when will we begin to see these effects to such a degree that it will become obvious? If we must wait 50 years, then the rate of change required becomes far more difficult to believe. Also, you make a comparison that is nonsense. It takes time to melt ice as well as a lot of energy. Have you looked at the temperature in Antarctica recently? I suggest you make a summer visit to the interior and take off your coat for a while if you want to see how quick the ice is going to melt. Now, where is the extra energy coming from that is going to turn this ice into water? The task that these guys have taken upon themselves is miles above their heads. Did you carefully read the article and find an out just in case their theory is not accurate? That type of nonsense is typical of the propaganda being spewed by folks with an agenda of some kind. We are not required to take seriously every statement made by every researcher Jed as that is the best recipe I know of leading to paralysis due to overload of your mind. Nothing would ever be accomplished if intelligent people are incapable of making decisions as to what they think has credibility and what does not. The burden is upon the ones that make such fantastic claims to prove that they are right, until that time we are under no obligation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If the level is going to rise by that amount, then I would expect to see a meter rise every decade, which is not happening. That is nonsense. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. You need to read the papers. That is a bit like saying that if a critical mass of uranium will explode with 20 kt of force, half that mass will explode with 10 kt. It does not work that way. Many phenomena are not linear. These conclusions may be incorrect but to dismiss them as a fairy tale is unscientific, and disrespectful to the researchers. That is a lot like the way people who know nothing about cold fusion dismiss cold fusion results. People who know the least are usually the ones who are quickest to dismiss a conclusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
No, Jed, it is not nonsense. It is simply a difference of opinion. Yes, the Chinese are working hard to get energy. Meanwhile the Japanese are burning more fossil fuel because they are afraid of fission power, which we all should be. The issue is not what we might do or could do if we were smart. The question is what will we actually do. Yes, we lack the will - that is my point. This approach will only change after the problem becomes obvious to the least smart among us. That is the way the system has always functioned, I'm very sorry to say. So live with it rather than wasting time wishing things were different. Yes, France has been lucky and very smart. This is a very rare condition among nations, which the history that you respect demonstrates. Meanwhile, a big part of the Ukraine and Japan can not be inhabited. If the cooling pond at Fukushima collapses, much of the world will suffer the same fate. You can also be sure that the race to build reactors rapidly in China will have its own demonstrations of incompetence. Nevertheless, we need to discuss reality, not what we hope might be real someday. Ed On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil fuels. I am sorry but this is nonsense. The Chinese are presently building 30 nuclear power reactors, and they are installing roughly that much wind power. If the U.S., Europeans and the Japanese were to build reactors, wind and solar at that rate, and if all First World countries were to aggressively develop plug-in electric cars and pure electric cars in crash projects, within 20 years we could reduce fossil fuel use by a large margin. We could export this technology to the Third World. We could also begin massive reforestation projects to capture CO2. We could also help Third World people replace kerosene illumination with solar powered LED lights. These projects would cost a great deal of money but they would also have many benefits aside from reversing global warming. There are countless other ways we could rapidly reduce fossil fuel use. We lack only the will, not the means. Even without cold fusion we could stop the threat of global warming in a generation, and make a huge profit doing it. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially in China. It is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning coal, natural gas, and oil. This is simply not true. It hasn't been true since commercial nuclear power was developed. There is a huge supply of uranium in the world. In France, they get 80% of their electricity from it! Fukushima demonstrated the risks and disadvantages of nuclear power. Obviously it is not ideal. Nothing is. It is better than continuing with fossil fuel and raising the sea level by 9 m in 80 years. - Jed
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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I live at 860 feet, should I be worried? Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 4:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 Ed said, “People had better start thinking in these terms soon. I thought ahead and now live at 8500 feet. :-)” I’m at about 5500’… might be beachfront in a few decades! J -mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 Jed, it is too late because no practical way exists to stop burning fossil fuels. The demand for energy is rising too rapidly, especially in China. It is impossible to satisfy this demand without burning coal, natural gas, and oil. The other sources of power are being developed as fast as possible, but they are not keeping up, even in the US. As you can see, the political will does not exist to do anything heroic. The will is not even present to develop cold fusion, which in any case would require years before it had any impact at all. Meanwhile, the effects of the present warming are creating positive feedback to the warming process, as Terry points out. The release of CH4 is the main problem. We can wish for a different reality, but I suggest we need to work with the one we have. People need to stop wasting political and emotional energy fighting the wrong war. We need to focus on solving the consequences of warming. For example, billions of dollars are now being spent to rebuild homes on the East coast that will be washed away again in our life time. When and how do people decide to move their homes to a safer location? People had better start thinking in these terms soon. I thought ahead and now live at 8500 feet. :-) Ed On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: 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. What makes you think that? We could stop using fossil fuel in 20 years. If we had started serious efforts in 1980 we would not be using any now. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my book, we could use reforestation and cold fusion to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We could do this at the same rate we are now adding it, or at a greater rate. This might call for a gigantic effort on the scale of WWII armament production, but it would be cheaper than abandoning our cities. Once the CO2 is gone, the problem should reverse itself. I think there are many ways to fix this problem. I do not see why you -- or anyone -- thinks it is too late. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I consider a quick action to be dangerous at this time and might well put many others in peril due to inefficiency. What danger?!? There is not ONE action proposed to combat global warming that would be dangerous. Most of the changes would be beneficial in their own right, even if turns out global warming is not happening. What objection can you have to electric cars or the increased use of wind energy? Even adding a few hundred nuclear power plants would cause no danger if it is done right. Most of the proposed changes are not only beneficial technologically, they would be obscenely profitable, and they would have the added advantage that they would destroy OPEC and Al Qaeda, which are two of my least favorite organizations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
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
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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On 01/30/2013 04:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: What danger?!? There is not ONE action proposed to combat global warming that would be dangerous. Most of the changes would be beneficial in their own right, even if turns out global warming is not happening. What objection can you have to electric cars or the increased use of wind energy? Even adding a few hundred nuclear power plants would cause no danger if it is done right. The danger is in the inefficiency. Electric cars and wind energy, is not present in the numbers you envision, because they are more expensive than proven internal combustion engines and fossil fuel. Forcing people to use these alternatives makes the cost of transportation and energy far more expensive than it would otherwise be. This hurts those at the bottom rung of the economic ladder the hardest. The market is the most efficient mechanism for supplying consumer needs. You would have to artificially limit the availability of fossil fuels to change the production of such goods and services today. This is why I always favor the moral solution to such problems, because it allows people to choose their own courses for their own lives, and enriches them more. The moral solution is free of violence and the threat of violence that governments impose when trying to change the structure of society for some external reason. Such a change may be necessary, but only if the Earth were definitely being threatened. Craig
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No, Jed, it is not nonsense. It is simply a difference of opinion. Yes, the Chinese are working hard to get energy. Meanwhile the Japanese are burning more fossil fuel because they are afraid of fission power, which we all should be. If they become convinced the ocean may rise 9 m 80 years from now, I expect they will restart the nuclear reactors. Public opinion in Japan is already swinging away from the plan to keep them all closed down, toward a gradual phase-out plan, which I think makes more sense. PM Abe supports this. His party won. They will also invest in solar energy to a much larger extent than they are now. I do not think they have many wind resources, but there may be some offshore. In Japan, people tend to solve technical problems. They are big fans of engineering solutions. Of course we should be afraid of fission power. I am afraid of Atlanta drivers who go 75 mph on I-75 and 85 mph on I-85. But I do not propose we close down the highways. We have to make trade offs and take risks to avoid greater risks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: The danger is in the inefficiency. Electric cars and wind energy, is not present in the numbers you envision, because they are more expensive than proven internal combustion engines and fossil fuel. I do not think so. Take for example, the cost of oil. It is three dollars a gallon but that does not include the cost of wars that we fight to secure supplies. If you would add that it would be $5-$10 per gallon I believe. The cost does not include externalities. Or, take the cost of coal-fired electricity. This is cheaper than wind turbines or nuclear power. However that is only because we do not pay the full cost. The smoke and particulates from coal kill roughly 20,000 people per year in the United States. The power companies pay nothing to their surviving families, and they do nothing to fix the problem, because these are poor people living downwind of the generators. If the airlines were to kill 20,000 passengers in crashes in a single year, we would abolish commercial aviation. We would spend trillions of dollars to eliminate it, with high speed mag lev trains or something. We would also fine the airlines enormous sums of money to recompense the families of the victims. We would do this because airline passengers are middle-class and upper-class people, not poor people. If a food company were to poison and kill 20,000 people with contaminated peanut butter we would again spend trillions of dollars to fix the problem and of course the food company would face huge lawsuits. Again, many of the victims would be middle class, and a corporation cannot kill middle class with impunity. Forcing people to use these alternatives makes the cost of transportation and energy far more expensive than it would otherwise be. Not at all. It would be cheaper overall, and soon it would be cheaper to the automobile owner. The market is the most efficient mechanism for supplying consumer needs. The market places no value on the lives of poor people living downwind of coal generators. It places no value on wars for oil. It will do nothing to prevent us from being inundated with 9 m of water. So I do not think it is efficient. It works in some limited ways, for some purposes. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
The danger involved, for one thing, is the waste of vital capital in pursuit of solutions that aren't real. If we get Cold Fusion or A Really Good Battery, well and good, problem solved. If not, wind, solar and nukes aren't going to replace oil. I am appalled at academics who propose 'solutions' without the practicality of seeing the whole picture, especially personal economics. Our global economy is hanging by gossamer threads. We will be doing well if we still have jobs in a decade, or food we can afford, or water we can drink. Vast numbers of Americans couldn't come up $1000 cash if an emergency hit. Retirement for most is gone. Automation may soon wipe out the payroll basis of Social Security. Many people in Europe can't afford their prescription medication. Nonlinear effects? You mean such as the fiscal cliff payroll tax increase ( $100 a month for many) that could have people unable to meet current expenses?(drop in consumer confidence just reported) Global warming is a concern but climate PhDs have no special authority in elevating their pet risks above all others. They publish strident warnings while 15% ( currently) of their student's loans go bad ( a threat that rivals the housing/debt collapse). People have a right to judge what threatens them the most.
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: 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. Actually, you would be surprised how well some people can predict the future of technology. I have a book first published in 1893, Today Then. It is subtitled America's best minds look at 100 years into the future on the occasion of the 1893 world's Columbian exposition. This is a collection of essays by leading experts on various subjects. Most of the articles about economics and society are wrong, some of them absurdly wrong. However, experts such as Westinghouse made specific predictions about technology that were remarkably accurate, such as the likely speed of freight transportation railroad trains. Arthur Clarke did a pretty good job predicting the Internet in 1963. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofpr.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I'm curious. of all the Vorts, who thankfully are discussing this issue in a respectable manner (so far), how many of you know what percent of the atmosphere is CO2? Be honest now. before you take 20 secs to look it up on the web! -Mark From: Chris Zell [mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 The danger involved, for one thing, is the waste of vital capital in pursuit of solutions that aren't real. SNIP
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No, Jed, it is not nonsense. It is simply a difference of opinion. Yes, the Chinese are working hard to get energy. Meanwhile the Japanese are burning more fossil fuel because they are afraid of fission power, which we all should be. If they become convinced the ocean may rise 9 m 80 years from now, I expect they will restart the nuclear reactors. Of course, when the threat is obvious, everyone will work hard. My point is that the threat is not obvious and will not be obvious enough to cause any change before it is too late. As for Japan, they are going back to nuclear power because they do not like living with rolling blackouts and high energy cost. A slow phase out is necessary, but the power will have to be replace by something else. As you note, wind is out. Solar is not sufficient and not steady. Japan needs to find oil and gas in its territory, which will create a conflict with China. Good luck with that. Public opinion in Japan is already swinging away from the plan to keep them all closed down, toward a gradual phase-out plan, which I think makes more sense. PM Abe supports this. His party won. They will also invest in solar energy to a much larger extent than they are now. I do not think they have many wind resources, but there may be some offshore. In Japan, people tend to solve technical problems. They are big fans of engineering solutions. Of course we should be afraid of fission power. I am afraid of Atlanta drivers who go 75 mph on I-75 and 85 mph on I-85. But I do not propose we close down the highways. We have to make trade offs and take risks to avoid greater risks. I agree. However, we enact laws to reduce the speed limit below what would be the speed without laws. This is done to solve an obvious problem, We need to solve the GW problem by doing something that actually will work. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** The danger involved, for one thing, is the waste of vital capital in pursuit of solutions that aren't real. If not, wind, solar and nukes aren't going to replace oil. As I said, wind and nukes are cheaper than oil when you include the price of wars in the Middle East, and terrorism by Al Qaeda which is paid for by the money we spend on oil. We would bankrupt Al Quaeda if we stopped buying oil. What do you think the so-called war on terror is costing us? Our global economy is hanging by gossamer threads. We will be doing well if we still have jobs in a decade, or food we can afford, or water we can drink. Technical solutions to these problems are right in front of us. We can make food with food factories and water from desalination. Not only would these things be affordable, they would soon be cheaper than today's food and water. There is capital in abundance. Trillions of dollars are sloshing around without a home. The US government is paying negative interest on savings. If we have any lack of water, food or energy, it will be because we stupid. As Clarke wrote in 1963: If, as is perfectly possible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed. Our problems are caused by human nature, fear and politics. Not by the limits of technology, and not by the expense, which is mostly negative. Meaning most of the solutions would save money. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: As for Japan, they are going back to nuclear power because they do not like living with rolling blackouts and high energy cost. They have not had any rolling blackouts, as far as I know. As you note, wind is out. Solar is not sufficient and not steady. Wind is out in Japan. Although they may have offshore wind capacity. The U.S., China, and Northern Europe each has so much wind energy that if we used it to make synthetic liquid fuel, we could produce of a flow of oil greater than all of the oil well in the Middle East. We could sell it for fantastic sums of money, and pay for the project quickly, in stages as it completes. The U.S. southwest or North Africa could do the same trick with solar energy. Europe could produce 4 times more energy than they now consume, with existing technology, from the North Sea wind alone. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Antarctica is getting colder. There has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years despite CO2 going up 10% Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr. Even at 230 Gt/yr, it would take 1,000 years for Greenland to lose 5% of its ice mass. Looks like someone has lost a decimal point or two in claiming 9 meter sea level rise by the end of the century. “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. Have a look at AKasofu here for a broader view. http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Only a free market can assess all the risks and costs, and provide the best product at the cheapest price. I am all in favor of capitalism, but it does not always assess all risks and costs successfully. Like any institution, it fails. People are imperfect and our institutions likewise. That is why coal goes on killing tens of thousands of people. That is why automobiles were unsafe until the Federal Government began regulating them in the 1960s. If the coal industry is killing people, there should be a court which would allow compensation. But there isn't, and there never will be. The coal interests are too powerful to allow any such court. They will squash it with political power. They own several Representatives in Congress, the entire state of West Virginia, and people such as Romney. Political power often trumps economic theory. There is no point in discussing what should be. We will stop using coal eventually because it will be obsolete. That will happen before any such court is established. There will be no justice for the poor people killed of by this technology. They have no money and they do not vote, so they are invisible to the economy and to Washington. Once all costs are considered . . . They never will be. The power companies and rate payers will not spend an extra penny per kilowatt hour to save 20,000 poor people. Or 200,000 if it came to that. They have been killing people at that rate for a century. Why should they stop? Who will make them? If anyone does make them stop, it will be a political movement, not an economic one. It will owe nothing to capitalism. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
I think the Earth's core is converting enthalpy to entropy and helping to cool us. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Wednesday, January 30, 2013, a.ashfield wrote: Antarctica is getting colder. There has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years despite CO2 going up 10% Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr. Even at 230 Gt/yr, it would take 1,000 years for Greenland to lose 5% of its ice mass. Looks like someone has lost a decimal point or two in claiming 9 meter sea level rise by the end of the century. “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. Have a look at AKasofu here for a broader view. http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~**sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_** components_recent_climate_**change.pdfhttp://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
CF has not soured me, Randy. Living for 83 years and watching history unfold has made me more of an realist than I was when I was young and compared to many people commenting on Vortex. Like everyone, I wish many things were different and I do what I can to make changes. However, some changes do not occur easily and need to be acknowledged. Also, some changes do not occur because the methods used to make the changes are flawed. For example, I do not believe that fighting to reduce CO2 is useful until a source of power able to take the place of coal has been found. Yes, using solar and wind can help, but they are not steady and are in the wrong place. In addition, they are more expensive without government support. If a problem is to be solved, the reality of the problem needs to be acknowledged, not cover the problem with hope and dreams. Thanks to discovery of more natural gas in the US, our coal is now being shipped to China rather than being burned here. Is this progress? Ed On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Randy wuller wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I’m curious… of all the Vorts, who thankfully are discussing this issue in a respectable manner (so far), how many of you know what percent of the atmosphere is CO2? Be honest now… before you take 20 secs to look it up on the web! No need to look it up. I read this: http://goo.gl/qZezD
RE: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
One of the comments says this: He [Crichton] rightfully warns us to be skeptical about what we are told from the variety of mainstream sources we are exposed to. I suspect that it will be difficult for anyone whose mind is not closed on the global warming issue to read this book without gaining a different perspective. However, it would also be wrong for the reader to conclude that the opposite is true -- that the issue is a complete fabrication... This research needs to be conducted on a level playing field, in which funders and researchers seek only the best answers we can get. I couldn't agree more, that ALL MEDIA, TV, radio, internet, print, and even to some degree academic research, is used by vested interests to further that vested interests' agenda. Follow the money... In order to get a better handle on the entire situation you need to read a variety of material. RE: Crichton... I read his bio and never realized that he also wrote or directed several books/movies that I remember from my younger days... like The Andromeda Strain and Westworld... I remember them well after all these years! The first time I 'heard' of him was Jurassic Park... love that movie! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100 On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I'm curious. of all the Vorts, who thankfully are discussing this issue in a respectable manner (so far), how many of you know what percent of the atmosphere is CO2? Be honest now. before you take 20 secs to look it up on the web! No need to look it up. I read this: http://goo.gl/qZezD
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: If you’re smart, sell the place now while beachfront property is valuable… when your house is underwater it won’t be worth much! I live in the East Bay, across a bridge from San Francisco. A group of us were discussing over lunch onetime what would happen as the water rises in New York. It seems to me that the water will before long make much of the coastal area of Manhattan uninhabitable. There are various contingencies that are being discussed, including putting up barriers and dams at various places along the lines of what has been done in the Netherlands (and hiring Dutch experts to help out). But eventually I think Manhattan and the surrounding areas might lose some of their luster as a center of culture and commerce, especially if there are regular floods coming through and leveling older neighborhoods. Over a period of decades, I don't think there is much that can be done except to move to higher ground or leave the area. So we were thinking that there might be a gradual exodus from New York once it sinks in that things are not the way they used to be. Where would all of the people go? A natural destination would be the Bay area -- it's quite sleepy compared to New York, but it's got its own allure as a chic place to live. The problem with that idea is that the Bay area itself will start to lose land to the encroaching waters. The New York Times had a what-if scenario, and much of the Bay area costal land ended up disappearing, if I remember correctly. So maybe not the Bay. Perhaps people might come through the Bay and then gradually move up to Sacramento; the problem there is that Sacramento is surrounded by flood planes and does not seem to be far above sea level. When you set aside Sacramento, you start losing some options. Eventually you begin to wonder whether Stockton, an industrial city quite a drive out into California's Central Valley, and similar cities, might be a destination for the all of the New Yorkers. Eric
Re: [Vo]:NHK: ocean levels may rise 9 m by 2100
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: But all costs need to be included in the product. If externalities were included in the price of things like petroleum use, I think you might see a dramatic change in consumer and industrial use of such resources. But companies, some of whom consciously rely upon important externalities being borne by society, and the individuals they hoodwink into believing them, will fight tooth and nail to prevent such pricing schemes. I am doubtful there will be the political will to set up a US carbon market anytime soon, for instance. People will argue that consumers cannot afford the additional hit to their pocket books. I think this misses the point, since they're already bearing the price in other, less obvious ways, including monetarily. Often I am not persuaded by arguments to the effect that if you enacted such and such legislation, it would exact a huge toll on average people. When WWII came along, and there was a huge industrial mobilization underway for the war effort, it placed a great burden on the US federal budget. But I believe that all of that expenditure, which was no doubt wildly inefficient and directed towards all kinds of silly things, ended up serving as a massive stimulus, and the US did quite well economically after that. Eric
