[lit-ideas] Re: Fwd: Re: global luke-warming -- addendum
- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:30:32 -0400
At 12:02 PM 4/17/2006, you wrote:
The IPCC estimate is about 110 to 430 mm from thermal
expansion between 1990 and 2100, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#IPCC_results.
Why you want to play around with 30C all the way to
the bottom is lost to me,
I just picked a warm number for the sake of calculations. My point is that
UNLESS ALL the water heats up, you are NOT going to get very much
expansion. Right now, the average warm depth is about 50 metres, not 3800.
Since water has the unique property of expanding upon cooling AND heating
from 4 C, After the 50 m mark, maximum density begins to sets in and ALL
the water, because of gravity is NECESSARILY 4 C. UNTIL this water is ALL
heated up to some quite substantially hotter temp, you are not going to
HAVE any expansion of the water... that's my only point.
but if you think 10.5M rise ober 75 years is somehow manageable while
drastic cuts
of CO2 emissions are not, I can only conclude that you are out of your
mind and not just plain silly.
I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs. I just think BOTH things are probably necessary
to avoid catastrophes. Something that was very politically incorrect to say
after katrina hit was "hey, look at those people, they lived BELOW sea
level, what did they expect'. If... in the course of the next 50 years, the
water levels continue to rise then people should begin to move inland, NOT
stand there in galoshes saying "it can't happen, it just can't happen". I
agree that limiting CO2 missions should be limited too, but if some of
these chicken littles are right, maybe it's just too late to avert some of
the disastrous side-effects. Maybe some of the trillions of dollars we
would have to spend on reducing those emissions, with absolutely no
guarantee of success should be spent on high ground infrastructure. Just a
suggestion.
And yes, I am aware that solar energy is deflected back to space, the
whole point of worrying about
greenhouse effect is that more of it will be stored.
There's actually no point 'worrying' about anything. There is a point to
doing something about it. I've not heard any workable ideas on how to
reduce emissions from the powers who have the power to do it. One thing
that would definitely do a great deal to reduce emissions would be to make
gas prices contingent on how your mileage is. You drive a car that gets 45
mpg, you pay a buck. You drive a behemoth that gets 15 mpg, you pay 3
bucks. That hits you 9 times as hard, not only are you using three times as
much, you pay three times as much. Hell, the gubment has already hit
drinkers and smokers -- relatively innocuous behaviours in the overall
scheme of THE EARTH -- where it hurts. How about lets hit these energy
profligates. Not only do we need penalties for wasting fuel, we need
BONUSES for NOT wasting it. People are largely governed by cost of life, if
you could prove to everyone that it would be tremendously cost-beneficial
to act in ways (even without them knowing it) that are also beneficial to
our environment, then we would be a lot better off.
Let's say 50% of our oil comes from overseas, if everyone bought a car that
got twice as much per gallon -- technically feasible, we wouldn't have to
buy ANY of our oil from them. That would not only reduce our emissions by
50%, but it would sure go a long way to force the M.E. to get their act
together.
p
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
