Ocean News

Quote
The World’s Coastal Cities Could Be Flooded in Just 50 Years

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/the-worlds-coastal-cities-could-be-flooded-in-just-50-years/

The world’s oceans could rise catastrophically as soon as 50 years from now, according to a new paper published this morning in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

The researchers behind the paper—Dr. James Hansen and 18 coauthors—looked back to 120,000 years ago, the last time the Earth warmed by the about the same amount it has today. (Global temperatures are now 1˚ C, or 1.8˚ F, above preindustrial levels.) Back then, natural warming unleashed nearly all of the water locked in polar ice sheets, sending sea levels surging 20-30 feet higher.

Today, over 630 million people worldwide live at or below 30 feet above sea level.

If the polar ice caps began to melt as they did 120,000 years ago, the researchers determined that much of the resulting fresh water would linger around the poles. The additional layer of water could slow or even halt major ocean currents that have been helping to redistribute and partially cool the seawater’s heat, similar to how stirring a steaming cup of coffee helps it cool off faster.

If the ocean currents shut down, then heat could build below the surface, the researchers think, causing even faster melting of the remaining ice that sits below the water level.

 

Myark, just post the good news, it'll be much quicker.

 

The good news is climate change is nothing to worry about compared to a human induced nuclear war at any time of any day .
Donald Trump actually made some sense with on a recent statement about unavoidable nuclear war compared to the importance of human induced climate change.
As they say we will eventually learn to slow down human induced global warming only to end up at any time fry the world with nukes.

Quote
STROMBERG: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?

http://mashable.com/2016/03/22/trump-climate-change-comments/#ViW1zaXD1EqB

TRUMP: Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.

The fact that Trump considers nuclear weapons to be a form of climate change is also odd, although he may be referring to nuclear winter, which is a short-term cooling period that would follow a large-scale exchange of nuclear weapons.

 

Had to argue that nukes aren't an ongoing high risk. Can't stay lucky forever.

 

Humans puzzle me why they spend $95.8 billion, including $11.8 billion in research just on subs not counting the rest of the nukes including China Russia and EU to eventually self destruct humanity once and for all.

 

Too funny! But sadly true.

 

The USA hasn't used nukes against an enemy since the end of WWII, despite being in some nasty wars.

Just like our personal weapons," it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it".

And the other motto, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"!

And another benefit.

If you're worried about America's armed might, military and personally owned, then you will forget trying to tax the air we breathe. Cause you can't win!

 

I think we are winning, though not as fast as needed. However, the next US election could change the politics markedly either way.

 

You don't understand.

You are living in a fantasy that if you can get a simple majority you can change the USA into a socialist paradise.

You can't.

The Constitution, the courts, the military, and civilian patriots are a palisade you can't scale with a simple majority.
You would have to have a vast majority and lead an armed rebellion to change the USA to socialism.
And even then, I doubt you'd win.
Because you'd be a minority when the smoke cleared.

 

There are some that make money from the air we breath such as wind turbines as the same a as solar power on roof tops the house owners are able to sell the extra power not used back into the main grid power stations.
Its a good business in NZ where people have sold their animals they would normally kill for money and now have replaced with wind turbines and not to have to kill anything except time to count the $ made from the air we breath.

 

Yeah? In the USA, most power plants have installed meters that won't run backwards, or they limit you to 110% of your power use.

Means if you produced 1000kw and used 200 kw last month yourself, they'll pay you for 20kw. 10% of the 200 kw you used previous month.
Next month, you will be paid nothing, because your meter ran backward this month, you used none of the monopoly electric power, and 10% of nothing is nothing
They just take the power without paying for it.

Not fair? Not fair to whom?

Power companies require enormous startup capital, and so have local government granted monopolies to produce power for a region.
They are in business to make a profit, not to provide a venue for entrepreneurs to start miniature wind power companies competing with them.
Competitors expecting to use free of charge, the multimillion dollar grid provided by, and at the expense of, the monopoly company.
Justice?
Not fair to the power company investors.
So, since they own and control their grid, they have authority to restrict or prohibit selling home made power to their grid.
They aren't forced to buy power you produce.
They are a producer not a user.
You dump your power production on their grid? That's a gift.
You weren't invited to do that. That's completely volunteered.

Start your own grid? They have a government guaranteed monopoly. So you can't, even if you scraped up the necessary millions to invest.

Of course, with millions, you could be a major stockholder in the BIG power company. Then YOU'D be crying to cut the homepower producers completely free from the grid!
Isolate them! Cut them off!
They're using YOUR grid for a free storage battery while paying you nothing!



Bet selling home power to the monopoly company, will be soon finished everywhere and not permitted anywhere.

 

Quote
A vegetarian world would be healthier, cooler and richer, scientists say

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/...althier-cooler-and-richer-scientists-say.html

By eating less meat and more fruit and vegetables, the world could avoid several million deaths by 2050, cut planet-warming emissions substantially, and save billions of dollars in healthcare costs and climate damage, researchers said.

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, is the first to estimate both the health and climate change impacts of a global move towards a more plant-based diet, they said.

Unbalanced diets are responsible for the greatest health burden around the world, and our food system produces more than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, said lead author Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food.

Adopting a diet in line with the global guidelines could avoid 5.1 million deaths per year by 2050, while 8.1 million fewer people would die in a world of vegans who do not consume animal products, including eggs and milk.

When it comes to climate change, following dietary recommendations would cut food-related emissions by 29 percent, adopting vegetarian diets would cut them by 63 percent and vegan diets by 70 percent.

Dietary shifts could produce savings of $700 billion to $1,000 billion per year on healthcare, unpaid care and lost working days, while the economic benefit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions could be as much as $570 billion, the study said.

 

Aren't you lucky CO2 is GREAT for growing veggies!

 

Hannibal was said to be winning, but he didn't win fast enough either.

 

http://www.mrc.org/articles/media-hype-hansens-latest-alarming-prediction-sea-levels-rise-10-feet

"One geologist told the MRC that Hansen’s claim had “zero credibility” based on previous climate patterns. And even alarmist scientists reacted to Hansen’s claims with caution and criticism, saying he made “conjectures” and “huge extrapolations” with only “flimsy evidence.” Skeptical scientists have said sea levels may rise several inches in coming years, but certainly not the “several meters” Hansen and fellow authors forecast.

At least as far back as the 1980s, Hansen predicted major increased temperature and sea levels, but so far his ideas have far overestimated actual increases. The media ignored that record. Instead, Slate said Hansen was “known for being alarmist and also right,” and The Daily Beast said he has “consistently been ahead of the scientific curve.”

“The world needs to take a collective yawn at Hansen’s latest claims and ask how in the world was this man ever allowed to be in charge of the NASA temperature datasets,” Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano told MRC Business.

Outlets including CBS and NBCNews.com also brushed over Hansen’s and his co-authors’ decision to publish and promote the study before it was peer-reviewed with the express intent of influencing U.N. climate negotiations in Paris later this year. Yet media and left-wing climate advocates have bashed skeptics for “essentially never publish[ing] in legitimate journals.”

Media Hype Hansen’s Study, Downplay Criticism

Even though skeptical and alarmist scientists both criticized Hansen’s latest work the media still promoted his apocalyptic claims about sea levels."

Make up your own minds about Hansens credibility.