You are using 3.3 mm rise per year as a basis for your projections.<br><br>While there is still a great deal of speculation about the subject, it appears that this rate is rising, and rising at a rate faster than was projected just three years ago. The latest findings having to do with the melting of Antarctic ice from below. Even three years ago the expected change in rate per year rise is climbing rapidly.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/predicting-future-sea-level-rise.html">http://www.skepticalscience.com/predicting-future-sea-level-rise.html</a> [Last updated three years ago]<br><br><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0509/Warm-water-threatens-vast-Anatarctic-ice-shelf-video">http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0509/Warm-water-threatens-vast-Anatarctic-ice-shelf-video</a> [Antarctic Ice Melt] <br>
<br>Here are two parts of many of the problem your analysis faces:<br><br>1. Average temperature of the earth's surface during the Pliocene Era [5.332 million to 2.588<sup id="cite_ref-ICS2009_1-0" class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene#cite_note-ICS2009-1"><span></span><span></span></a></sup> million years ago] is only a controversial guess and since no comprehensive measurements of such temperatures were available. The size of this era makes any generalization about long range projections of little value since it appears that there were numerous global climate/temperature changes during this lengthy period [2.744 million years].<br>
<br>2. Since the Pliocene Era, continental drift and associated geological changes has greatly changed the configurations of land and sea that affect climate. Without factoring in these changes, projections based purely on this era are likely subject to considerable error.<br>
<br>I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I have been following it since a Geology Class in 1972. I have personally seen the a great deal of glacial ice loss in the Canadian Rockies of which I have been a frequent visitor since 1950. Perhaps Ted Moffett can offer some insight here.<br>
<br>w.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
I must think differently than most people. When I see somebody say
"The world is going to end! We're all going to die! But, wait! I
have a PLAN!" I immediately become skeptical. Doesn't mean he's
wrong, it just means that I'm going to assume he's exaggerating for
effect unless I find out otherwise.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
I don't have a lot of time tonight to go through this, but let's
take a quick look at the Pliocene era. Here's what James Hansen
says:<br>
<br>
"If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to
burn our conventional oil, gas and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about coal." target="_blank">coal</a>
supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more
than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet
higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would
assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate
out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities.
Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent
of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization
would be at risk. "<br>
<br></div>
So I did some quick research. The sources I found have the CO2
levels somewhere between 350 and 400 ppm during this period, which
we are indeed just passing now. The odd thing is that the
temperature during the Pliocene was about 2-3C warmer than it is
today, even at CO2 levels equal to today's levels. This was back in
the day when CO2 levels followed temperature, by the way, since
there were no evil humans driving SUVs. This is a open question in
geology, apparently. This is actually good news, since the Earth
did not accelerate into a hothouse world due to positive feedbacks
driven by the loss of the Arctic ice pack (it hadn't yet formed,
which is why the sea level was higher). In fact, 2.5 Mya is the
onset of the Pleistocene, during which the Earth was slid into an
Ice Age with short periods of warmth interspersed among long periods
of glaciation, the last one ending 15000 years ago or so. The CO2
level during this period (the Pleistocene) fluctuated between 100
and 300 ppm. Only lately have they been as high as they are now
(~394 ppm). Given that fact, it makes me wonder if we don't need
higher CO2 levels to prevent us from slipping into another Ice Age,
since these same levels were not enough to stop the last one even
though temperatures were warmer than now, and the Arctic ice pack
did not yet exist.<br>
<br>
As one of the premier climate scientists, I suspect that James
Hansen knows all this. My conclusion: he wanted to use the 50ft sea
level rise number as a scare tactic. Sea level rise, even at the
worst estimate provided by the IPCC, would take 4618 years to raise
50ft, by my calculations (50ft = 15240 mm / 3.3 mm/yr = 4618 years).<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 05/10/2012 04:46 PM, Art Deco wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">First, notice this is an OP/ED article.<br>
<br>
Second, notice that Hansen presents a lot of facts, then makes
predictions on that basis.<br>
<br>
Hence, if you want to dispute his facts, do so.<br>
<br>
If you want to dispute the probability of his conclusions based on
the facts presented or alternative facts, do so.<br>
<br>
However, he has a right, and perhaps even a moral obligation given
the seriousness of his claim, to present warnings to the world.<br>
<br>
Scientists do what Hansen is doing all the time, and have been do
so for a long time. The most common cases are about the
consequences of using various prescription drugs, OTC drugs, and
nutrients, medical devices, fillings, medical procedures, etc.<br>
<br>
All scientific theories are probabilistic, and therefore opinions
-- opinions hopefully based on probabilities based on careful
research and reasoning. Scientific theories predict impacts on
all of us. They ought be put into the market place of ideas for
all of us to evaluate.<br>
<br>
"Leave the rest to politicians." Are you fucking out of your
mind? Are you not aware of what egregious messes contemporary
politicians have gotten us into, and how little regard they have
for the truth and the overall well being of human kind?<br>
<br>
w.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif">
<div><span>I remember a day when scientists used to stick
to the facts. They would say things like "we can't
tell you what to do, but we can tell you that our
analyses have shown that this and this and this are
likely with this level of uncertainty". Nowadays,
scientists are fricking political activists. They
give their opinions in articles in Rolling Stone and
charge big sums of money for speaking engagements at
various venues, and get arrested for protesting oil
pipelines.<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Can James Hansen show with scientific certainty
that his plan would keep all the alarmist predictions
of disaster at bay and then it would no longer be
"game over"? What is the scientific definition of
"game over"? Climate scientists need to, in my
opinion, take back their scientific neutrality.
Here's what we've found, here's what our degree of
confidence is. Leave the rest to the politicians.</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>It's statements like "</span>the science of the
situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to
follow" that make me immediately skeptical of everything
he says.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Paul<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b>
Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:49 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
[Vision2020] Game Over for the Climate<br>
</font> </div>
<div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div>
<div> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=cc8f29dd/870b4e4f&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=BOSW_120x60_May4_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild" target="_blank">
<br>
</a> </div>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1">
<div>May 9, 2012</div>
<h1>Game Over for the Climate</h1>
<span>
<h6>By JAMES HANSEN</h6>
</span>
<div>
<div>
GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is
happening. That is why I was so troubled to
read a recent <a rel="nofollow" href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/04/i-have-the-utmost-respect-for.html" target="_blank">interview with President
Obama</a> in Rolling Stone in which he
said that <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/canada/index.html?inline=nyt-geo" title="More news and information about
Canada." target="_blank">Canada</a> would
exploit the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about oil." target="_blank">oil</a> in its vast tar
sands reserves “regardless of what we do.” </div>
<div>
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it
will be game over for the climate. </div>
<div>
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand
saturated with bitumen, contain twice the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global
oil use in our entire history. If we were to
fully exploit this new oil source, and
continue to burn our conventional oil, gas
and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about coal." target="_blank">coal</a> supplies,
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere eventually would reach levels
higher than in the Pliocene era, more than
2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at
least 50 feet higher than it is now. That
level of heat-trapping gases would assure
that the disintegration of the ice sheets
would accelerate out of control. Sea levels
would rise and destroy coastal cities.
Global temperatures would become
intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the
planet’s species would be driven to
extinction. Civilization would be at risk. </div>
<div>
That is the long-term outlook. But
near-term, things will be bad enough. Over
the next several decades, the Western United
States and the semi-arid region from North
Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent
drought, with rain, when it does come,
occurring in extreme events with heavy
flooding. Economic losses would be
incalculable. More and more of the Midwest
would be a dust bowl. California’s Central
Valley could no longer be irrigated. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/food_prices/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about food prices and
supply." target="_blank">Food prices</a>
would rise to unprecedented levels. </div>
<div>
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is
why we need to reduce emissions
dramatically. President Obama has the power
not only to deny tar sands oil additional
access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada
desires in part for export markets, but also
to encourage economic incentives to leave
tar sands and other dirty fuels in the
ground. </div>
<div>
The <a rel="nofollow" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="Recent and archival news about
global warming." target="_blank">global
warming</a> signal is now louder than the
noise of random weather, as I predicted
would happen by now in the journal Science
in 1981. Extremely hot summers have
increased noticeably. We can say with high
confidence that the recent heat waves in
Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in
2003, which killed tens of thousands, were
not natural events — they were caused by
human-induced climate change. </div>
<div>
We have known since the 1800s that carbon
dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The
right amount keeps the climate conducive to
human life. But add too much, as we are
doing now, and temperatures will inevitably
rise too high. This is not the result of
natural variability, as some argue. The
earth is currently in the part of its
long-term orbit cycle where temperatures
would normally be cooling. But they are
rising — and it’s because we are forcing
them higher with fossil fuel emissions. </div>
<div>
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per
million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150
years. The tar sands contain enough carbon —
240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale,
a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in
the United States, contains at least an
additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we
turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of
finding ways to phase out our addiction to
fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping
carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a
level that would, as earth’s history shows,
leave our children a climate system that is
out of their control. </div>
<div>
We need to start reducing emissions
significantly, not create new ways to
increase them. We should impose a gradually
rising carbon fee, collected from fossil
fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent
of the collections to all Americans on a
per-capita basis every month. The government
would not get a penny. This market-based
approach would stimulate innovation, jobs
and economic growth, avoid enlarging
government or having it pick winners or
losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest
energy users, would get more back than they
paid in increased prices. Not only that, the
reduction in oil use resulting from the
carbon price would be nearly six times as
great as the oil supply from the proposed
pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline
superfluous, according to economic models
driven by a slowly rising carbon price. </div>
<div>
But instead of placing a rising fee on
carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay
their true costs, leveling the energy
playing field, the world’s governments are
forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels
with hundreds of billions of dollars per
year. This encourages a frantic stampede to
extract every fossil fuel through
mountaintop removal, longwall mining,
hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar
shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic
drilling. </div>
<div>
President Obama speaks of a “planet in
peril,” but he does not provide the
leadership needed to change the world’s
course. Our leaders must speak candidly to
the public — which yearns for open, honest
discussion — explaining that our continued
technological leadership and economic
well-being demand a reasoned change of our
energy course. History has shown that the
American public can rise to the challenge,
but leadership is essential. </div>
<div>
The science of the situation is clear — it’s
time for the politics to follow. This is a
plan that can unify conservatives and
liberals, environmentalists and business.
Every major national science academy in the
world has reported that global warming is
real, caused mostly by humans, and requires
urgent action. The cost of acting goes far
higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait
any longer to avoid the worst and be judged
immoral by coming generations. </div>
<div>
<div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html" target="_blank">James Hansen</a> directs
the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies and is the author of “Storms of My
Grandchildren.”</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="width:310px"><br>
<h3><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/09/should-churches-get-tax-breaks?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp" target="_blank">Room for Debate:
Should Churches Get Tax Breaks?</a></h3>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>