Comments on: Ain’t no mountain high enough

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:17:42 +0000

Sorry, Steve, all you are demonstrating is the depth of your own ignorance. Try doing some research before you pontificate.

http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200909170018#
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820082101.htm

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:12:06 +0000

Most of Bangladesh is less than 7m above sealevel, most people live in places way less. The delta has not been prograding for last 200 years with the Indian dam on the Ganges making matters worse.

Re: your quote . Try looking in the mirror.

By: Steve Wrathall

Steve Wrathall — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:17:23 +0000

Rate of sea level rise needed for 500 mm this century = 5 mm/year

Rate observed = 2-3mm/year

For comparison: rate up uplift of the Himalayas = up to 10mm/year

Where do you think this is eroded to?

Chance the Bangaladeshis will “lose” their country = 0

To paraphrase Ben Franklin and Stephen Schneider, those who sacrifice being honest in order to be effective will end up being neither.

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:47:00 +0000

Unfortunately, these timeframes may just be wishful thinking, as we simply don’t know what surprises thawing tundra and clathrates may spring.

Paleoclimatology shows that past climates could tip from one state to another in a matter of decades.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090225132239.htm

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:40:22 +0000

Steve, a lot of straw man punching here. There isnt going to be a day-after-tomorrow catastrophe. I’ll finish my life I think without too much trouble, even we get sealevel rise moving up to 5mm/year, and loss of summer north pole ice as soon as 2030. The issue is scale of feedback and lag. The trouble is that feedbacks build, rates increase and the costs of doing anything about it go up massively. I’m beginning to suspect the climate change may be something that humanity is too stupid to handle. It happens too slowly to be understood as clear and present danger till its too late to anything useful about it. Science has delivered some unpopular messages so for many people its cool to dis science and scientists. Even when you have a consensus for effective action, you can see it disappearing when a natural negative cycle kicks in – “oh, look are making a difference -relax”. And paying a cost now for sake of future generations is a tough sell. Furthermore, change and effect is regional – feel like paying a tax for sake of Aussie farmers? I didnt think so. Salt-poisoning in Bangladesh is probably trouble for people you dont care much about. However, I think we may underestimate the global risk from regional problems – when you have a bunch of people where life is cheap, hope is minimal, and some loon promises a better life if you will just join their good fight, then -well why not, nothing much to lose.

Its easy to be pessimistic about it but I just hope I am wrong, and we can make the risk assessment, then do the right thing. I dont think it even that hard, especially for NZ. Looks cheaper too than cost of doing nothing. If you live in a coastal city, draw a map of your city with 0.5-1m of sealevel rise. Not pretty for Dunedin and not for other cities I have done either.

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:38:31 +0000

The ANDRILL team found that the Ross Ice Shelf has repeatedly collapsed when CO2 reached 400 ppm, triggering instability in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
This, plus lesser melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet equates, over time, to ~ 10 m of sea level rise.

How much SLR can NZ ports cope with before they become unusable?

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:37:23 +0000

Al didn’t specify a time scale. That aside, how much sea level rise do you think will be catastrophic for the inhabitants of Bangladesh, the Mekong Delta, and the other Asian megadeltas? Half a metre should be enough to cause a lot of grief — and we could easily see that well within the next 100 years.

By: Steve Wrathall

Steve Wrathall — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:49:56 +0000

In order for non-linear, positive feedbacks to cause catastrophic meltdown on Al-Gore type timescales, melting will have to increase at least a thousandfold. There is no credible mechanism that could cause such an outcome.

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:44:05 +0000

Steve, which part of the word “feedback” do you not understand?

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-feedback.html

http://www.bigpicture.tv/videos/watch/371bce7dc

By: Doug Clover

Doug Clover — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:30:24 +0000

Linear thinking from someone with little undeerstanding.