Okay Great-As Little 80mm Sea Level Rise Could Trigger a Self-sustained Discharge of the Entire East Antarctic Ice Basin

Good thing we never get ocean waves or tides above 80 mm.

nclimate2226.html

It's a good thing you understand the difference between a high-pass filter and a low-pass one.

Not.

When the waters close in on the last bit of land and the human race is days from final extinction, I'll post an apology.

Not.

You'll be drinking your own urine before the summer is out...

The Greenland ice-sheet represents a 6-metre ocean level rise, and the whol e Antarctic ice sheet about 60 metres.

Neither a sea-level rise of 6 metres nor one of 60 metres is going to cover the existing land-masses. Either would require us to relocate our coastal cities, which would be expensive and inconvenient.

Neither is likely to drive the human race to extinction. The accompanying d isruption to agriculture and food distribution might well produce a populat ion crash, which will fall well short of an extinction.

It seems likely that our cultural tool-kit evolved to allow us to survive t he ice-age to interglacial transitions which have been a feature of the pla net for the last few million years.

The consequences of runaway anthropogenic global warming look to be roughly as dramatic as the transition from an ice age to an inter-glacial, so we'l l probably have to do as much cultural adaption as our recent ancestors, wh o seem to have evolved into us during the most recent ice age, though they didn't get around to inventing agriculture until the current inter-glacial was well under way.

Evolution and adaption does involve quite vigorous selection - which is to say a lot of people die before they can reproduce - so the human race that might emerge on the other side of unrestrained anthropogenic global warmin g would be likely to be less numerous than it is now, and might well includ e fewer people with John Larkin's penchant for not thinking before he opens his mouth.

On a sunny day (Tue, 6 May 2014 14:14:28 -0700 (PDT)) it happened snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in :

Look 0bama's just released an other climate fear mongering campain on the poor people, so they can TAX them more. Do we need to be exposed to all that crap here?

On a sunny day (Tue, 06 May 2014 14:49:41 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

;-)

tml

poor people, so they can TAX them more.

You and John Larkin clearly need to be exposed to real information about an thropogenic climate change, rather than the soothing lies spread by the den ialist lobby, which is funded by people who want to keep on making money ou t of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel.

Neither of you has enough sense to tell shit from shinola, so the real info rmation is wasted on you, but people with better-functioning brains may ben efit from it.

That's just dumb. The U.S. is averaging about $100B annual for catastrophic weather damage relief. This is going on a decade now and is unprecedented. It's seems like a lot of money to spend on a fiction.

On a sunny day (Wed, 7 May 2014 08:58:30 -0700 (PDT)) it happened snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in :

Climate has always changed, To quote somebody else 'they do not even know the difference between weather and climate change'. If its cold it is blamed on climate change, if it is hot it is blamed on glowballworming,

And it is really all very predictable:

The political advantage the demonrats try to gain from jingling with it is the target. nothing like taxing the weather either,

What we really need (or you) is better dikes, better irrigation, water works, new roads, new electrical grid, maybe some high speed trains too.

This will not happen without either money, or a war situation. So 0bama tries to get Russia to nuke it all so people can be put to work for free rebuilding the infrastructure, and putting nice heaters in place, that then should last some years till the next WW[4],

And this class, is the quintessential example of why we have so many problems with society that we know how to fix, but never seem to get fixed...

html

the poor people,

Poor people don't read "Nature"; their controllers do. Nor is it to tax the poor more, but to tax the productive more. Think that through.

?-)

html

he poor people, so they can TAX them more.

In fact it isn't about tax at all, but about preventing further damage to t he environment.

We have choice. We can burn fossil carbon as fuel now, to generate cheap en ergy, and release the CO2 generated into the atmosphere, as we've been able to get away with for the past couple of centuries, but at the cost of prog ressively warming the surface of the planet, melting a few ice sheets and m essing up agriculture

Or we can generate our energy by processes that release less CO2 into the a tmosphere. This roughly doubles the price of energy (at the moment) which w ould slow down (but neither stop, nor reverse, economic growth).

The up-side of the second choice is that we wouldn't have to relocate our f arms, our ports and our coastal cities over the next century or so, which w ould also slow down our economic growth. Since we don't know quite how anth ropogenic global warming is going to change the planet, there is a risk tha t the less obvious complications of global warming might stop or reverse ec onomic growth.

The Gulf Stream turned off for 1300+/-70 years between 12,800 and 11,500 ye ars ago, at the end of the most recent ice age, probably when the Laurentia n ice sheet slid off into the Atlantic. We don't know whether the Greenland ice sheet could do the same job, and we'll probably be lot happier if we n ever find out.