Worrisome Antarctic Melting.

[_Gunnar]

For your consideration: http://news.yahoo.com/catastrophic-collapse-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-begins-200640377.html

[_Quasimodo]

For your consideration: http://news.yahoo.com/catastrophic-collapse-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-begins-200640377.html

This is seriously worrying! It seems it is irreversible.

There are some populated atolls in the South Pacific that will be underwater in this century. There will also be some expensive homes near beaches around the world that will soon have high-tide waves crashing into their living rooms (I hope they are all owned by climate change deniers).

[_ajax18]

(I hope they are all owned by climate change deniers)

It doesn't matter. Those that don't buy insurance will get a government bailout just like the people in New Orleans did. They'll take that from you Quasimodo in the form of any inheritance you wished to leave your family or offspring.

[_Quasimodo]

(I hope they are all owned by climate change deniers)

It doesn't matter. Those that don't buy insurance will get a government bailout just like the people in New Orleans did. They'll take that from you Quasimodo in the form of any inheritance you wished to leave your family or offspring.

I like you, ajax, but you are a strange and unusual person. Where do you get these horse biscuits?

Insurance usually doesn't cover floods or earthquakes.

[_ajax18]

Insurance usually doesn't cover floods or earthquakes.

Would you own a home where you look up to see ships on the water sailing above you and neglect to purchase flood insurance?

The sensible thing to do would be to insure it well or sell it and move to higher ground if you can't afford to pay the insurance. Saying that the government owes it to me to replace my house if I choose not to buy flood insurance is ridiculous.

Did you buy earthquake insurance on your home Quasimodo?

[_MeDotOrg]

Would you own a home where you look up to see ships on the water sailing above you and neglect to purchase flood insurance?

The sensible thing to do would be to insure it well or sell it and move to higher ground if you can't afford to pay the insurance.

Let's take the example of New Orleans.

The problem for many people is that the cheapest land is at the lowest lying area. The ninth ward, the hardest hit area of the city, is also the poorest.

In New Orleans, where the wealthy dead rest in Mausoleums above the water line, there has always been a correlation between social standing and your elevation above sea level.

The Mississippi River, left to its own devices, is (to use a simple analogy) like a garden hose that is pushing out a lot of silty water. After a while a pile of silt builds up at the mouth of the hose, and the hose rolls off to one side or another.



Before man, the mouth of the Mississippi River would move as far west as the Texas border. In order for the city of New Orleans to exist, the Mississippi was straitjacketed into its current narrow channel. All the silt, which used to build up the land, is now flushed out into the gulf. The land on either side of the mouth of river, made of silt, gradually compresses and gets lower and lower. The wetlands, which act as a barrier against hurricane storm surges, are dying as the land sinks lower and salt water creeps back.

The point is that man started with a very simple idea: control the mouth of the river so that there could be a functioning port. The Army Corps of Engineers can dredge and build dykes and levees, but they cannot stop the inexorable effects of time, effects that are exacerbated by the very actions they take to control it.

So we are left with the City of New Orleans, where the wealthy dead lie in tombs above ground, and the poor watch the ships go by in channels that are higher than the ground they occupy, gradually sinking into the sea.

Do we abandon the idea of a functioning port? Do we gradually evacuate the low lying areas of the city? Do we hope that engineering will solve the short-term problem, and kick the can down the road for future generations?

The great engineering achievement of controlling the Mississippi Delta roughly coincides with the buildup of carbon dioxide from the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution started with a simple idea: replace muscle power (man or animal) with machine power.



Both problems are similar in that they are man-made, and long-term solutions are both painful and uncertain.

If we could wave a magic wand and say there is a cheap, plentiful alternative to fossil fuels, I believe that most of the opposition to the science of Global Warming would (pardon the pun) melt away.

The problem is threefold:

• There is no ready, easy substitute for fossil fuels.
• We are talking about scientific theories that cannot be replicated in a test tube.
• The implications of the science: that human beings, as a species, must act together on a global level for our common good. All by itself that has implications for nationalism and individual freedom.

We know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution. We know that carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, trapping heat that would otherwise escape. What we cannot reproduce in a lab is how these things interact on a global scale. We have modeling, but models aren't the real thing.

So what do we do? If we believe the science, the implications for our current industrial revolution lifestyle are staggering. But if we take drastic action, don't we also risk ruining our current economic structure for science that can only be prognosticated through modeling?

So what do we do?

Whatever we decide, there is a huge potential downside.

If we decide that we should not base our actions on scientific modeling, we risk having greatly diminished our planet for future generations.

If we decide to take action now, we run the risk of damaging our economic system for an unproven scientific theory.

When I look at the downside of each scenario, I come to the conclusion we must act to stop global warming. Why?

Because the downside of NOT acting, if the scientists are correct, is much greater that the downside if they are wrong. Mandating energy efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions could reduce world wide dependency on fossil fuel. All we have to do is look at the geopolitical implications of Russia, Germany and the Ukraine (Not to mention the Middle East) to understand that the world is much better off when foreign policy is not dictated by the location of fossil fuel.

But in not acting, we risk putting the planet on a trajectory that is irreversible. We begin to look at positive feedback loops, like frozen tundra thawing, which releases methane, which traps more energy, which raises the temperature, which thaws more tundra, which releases more methane. It's easy to talk about sea walls and homeowner's insurance, but these things pale in significance to the potential problem mankind is creating.

[_Always Changing]

My concern about their projections on sea-level raise is that they do not take into account the simultaneous dwindling of Antarctic ice, Greenland ice, and Arctic ice. PLUS, with global warming, weather extremes will become more common. Thus, people should abandon those low-lying areas as fast as possible. I have concerns for the Netherlands, New Orleans, and NYC, as well as Bangladesh and other places. It all does not look good, even if Waterworld is an impossibility.

Of course, if mankind refuses to adapt to the changes, or slow the trend, the ultimate solution is catastrophic reduction in the world human population. That, in itself, will take care of the root problem. But that is not what we want.

[_Res Ipsa]

One of the many things that need to be done in light of climate change is flood insurance reform. Sadly, Congress and the President took us a step backwards this year. We need to discourage folks from building in flood plains and encourage them to rebuild out of flood plains after disasters.

At the bottom of my list of concerns is worrying about whether someone, somewhere, is getting a break not available to Ajax.

[_subgenius]

One of the many things that need to be done in light of climate change is flood insurance reform. Sadly, Congress and the President took us a step backwards this year. We need to discourage folks from building in flood plains and encourage them to rebuild out of flood plains after disasters.

At the bottom of my list of concerns is worrying about whether someone, somewhere, is getting a break not available to Ajax.

Ironically, flood insurance is a means to discourage people from building in the floodplain.

But hey, let us be practical

this map of new orleans shows in white the areas not requiring flood insurance or a flood base.

relocating all these people, by discouraging them should be no problem, right?

[_Ceeboo]

Concerning, indeed!

Peace,
Ceeboo