arctic ice increases 60%

UN says global warming temperature threshold 'ever-more elusive' | DEUTSCHE WELLE

 

This is what the environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg has observed and it is the reason he gives for using funds wisely to adapt to the effects of climate change as you reduce emmisions

 

Posting articles like that isn't going to convince anyone who is sceptical of the accepted scientific position, because they don't believe the assumptions and evidence behind it anyway. So, although the articles may be correct they will be ineffective in changing opinions.

If increased CO₂ is a real problem, then to get effective countermeasures in place what is needed is to change the opinions of people who prefer to think increased CO₂ isn't a problem. It's quite understandable that they would prefer to think that. I'd prefer to think it myself. Unfortunately, my personal preferences don't control reality.

By the way, I've been thinking about the use of the term "alarmist". Obviously, it's intended as a way of dismissing the current science. However, when you look at their arguments, it seems clear that the people who deny the science are often alarmist themselves. They're just alarmist about different things.

Instead of being alarmed at what the science is telling us, they're alarmed because they fear their entire culture, their preferred economic system and their political freedom is in danger of extinction, due to the machinations of a united conglomeration of governments that are in league with just about every scientist available in an attempt to hide the truth and instill mindless panic in the global population.

If that's not alarmist, I don't know what is. With that in mind, I'm thinking that whenever someone tries to throw "alarmist" around as a perjorative against current climate science, it would be fair to reply by pointing out their own "alarmist" tendencies, should they happen to have any.

They could even be given their own little acronym: NAGWA, or No Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist.

 

Sadly, I've come to agree with you. The benefit that I hope will come from posting recent scientific information about Climate Change is to inform those that are interested in the subject, but who may not realize the seriousness of the situation.

 

if man caused carbon dioxide emissions are a problem (which I think what is questioned), than we have to get away from fuels that give off carbon dioxide emissions.

how about a thorium powered car that can run on 8 grams of thorium for 100 years?

http://www.industrytap.com/thorium-fueled-automobile-engine-needs-refueling-once-a-century/15649

of course they would need to come up with a way for taxing you for using the roads, and I wonder what would happen with all the spent thorium in 100 years. It could also be used on all boats too, from cargo ships to pleasure boats.

 

Looks kinda slick, but where do you fit your luggage? Also appears to be a trifle short on suspension travel.

 

I have no idea whether a thorium-powered care is actually feasible. But the website does say this:

Maybe I could replace the engine in my CJ-5 Jeep with it? Then I could lose the Jerry can of gas on the back, and carry another five gallons of water instead....

 

who needs luggage in a car like that! I wonder how the driver sees out the car, all the glass points upward!

500 lb is a bit on the heavy side, most modern engines for midsize and compact cars are about half that. It does not say how much power it produces, 500lbs for a 20 hp output would not be a very useful car.

 

If all the ice melted | NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

 

Looks good, a lot of new cruising ground. Keep them smoking

 

The municipalities close to Stockholm were asked (I've forgotten by which authority) to plan for a rise of the sea level of 2 - 4 meters in 100 years or so. The effect of the rising sea is to some degree mitigated by land rise since the most recent ice age. Land rise in the Stockholm area is about 5 mm per year and it will continue for several millenniums.

(The idea of land rise, or receding sea as they understood it, was opposed by the church and some scientists in the 18:th century. Nowadays it's accepted as truth and the Swedish church has no problem with it.)

Anyway, the foreseen rise of the sea level will among other things result in salt water incursion into the large lake Mälaren, where Stockholm and other municipalities take fresh water. Building dams to seal the inlets isn't much of an engineering problem, or we could accept that Mälaren becomes a part of the sea. I'm inclined to not fight nature and as TeddyDiver see some benefits to boating.

My belief is that humanity will eventually have burnt all easily available oil and come around to reducing the amount of green house gasses when it isn't so profitable to deny the problem. A sea level rise of a few meters is realistic, a total melt-down of all glaciers is not.

Erik

 

Salt invasion of coastal aquifers is a problem. Luckily society has plenty of time to prepare.

 

Current predictions are for sea level rise of less than a meter by 2100, which is still going to be a problem for some people, but not for others. The Nepalese wont be too worried about it.

Salt water invasion is already proving to be a problem for some societies, particularly on small Pacific Ocean islands. They are not at all impressed with the developed countries' attitudes that there is plenty of time. Quite understandably, they are very worried about their culture and their economic system being destroyed, and rather pissed that this problem was created by other people who don't seem to give a rat's.

 

You don't have to go to some remote Pacific Island to find folks at the brink of hardship due to higher ocean levels and salt-water incursion.

Goodbye, Miami | ROLLING STONE

 

Low lying Island counties are in trouble. They would be in trouble even if climate chage had no human component