Flood Insurance
When you live just a few blocks from the edge of a small island, the prospect of global warming and rising seas can be extremely scary. The worst case scenarios say the oceans could be almost a meter deeper by 2100, but I had no idea whether that meant I should buy some flood insurance. Fortunately, somebody repackaged a googlemap to show how far the seas can rise before you need to grow gills.
At 1 meter, my neighborhood’s coastline barely moves. While some major streets would flood, my personal little bit of dirt would be unaffected. In fact, it appears I’m good to 10 meters, assuming I don’t mind a flooded basement.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Don’t forget about storms, though…
September 20th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Good thing we’re up on the 2nd floor! Glug-glug-glug!
September 20th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
I guess global warming is why the ice sheet in Greenland is getting thicker.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
“I guess global warming is why the ice sheet in Greenland is getting thicker. ”
Cite please. Be sure that it is a juried academic article from a researcher who does not receive funding from energy companies (directly or indirectly).
Here’s a fact: The Antarctic ice pack is spreading. It’s getting thinner too.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Melting antartic ice should be offset by melting arctic ice. You know, that thing about water level dropping when floating ice melts and all that.
Speaking of this, Al Gore has a new scheme to tax the hell out of us, destroy one set of companies and make another set rich.
http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/144031
http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/144093
September 21st, 2006 at 2:19 am
Oh damn, the ice in my whiskey and coke melted, and my whole house flooded and the water is getting deeper.
The guy that wanted a cite about Greenland, I don’t know about Greenland, but I would like to see the bonafides of the doomsayers of global warming. Put that up. I think you will find they are the same researchers or research labs that just a few decades ago warned us of another Ice Age, with glaciers far south of ‘Chicago if we didn’t do something immediately.
Then the grant money dried up. Now, guess what? Uh huh.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Oh, damn, I’m incapable of thinking about complex problems in complex ways. So I’ll pretend an exaggerated sophomoric “counterpoint” is somehow relevant.
As for bonafides, you could try starting here, although I’m sure the horrible liberal taint of PBS will prevent serious consideration on your part.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:12 am
tgirsch, you seem to have trouble knowing when you are being conned. I don’t know how old you are, but I am old. I probably won’t be here when the next climatological crisis that we must immediately address comes up. Hopefully you will, if you are here then, please note how none of the contradictions of the passe’ crisis are addressed while the hysteria is hyped for the new hipper crisis is generated.
Tell me, did you also buy into the “hole in the ozone fraud”? I bet you did. What do you hear about it now? What?
Believe it or not, the two supposed crises are related, though not manmade. They are both naturally occurring phenomena. Can you tell me how much greenhouse gas in the world today is contributed by the actions of man? Look it up.
Have you read any of the many scientists that dispute global warming as the fault of human activity? I thought not. Try it, I think you will be surprised at how much more sense and scientific probability their position holds. Oh, they don’t dispute global warming. After all, at one time the Atlantic Ocean was frozen over as far south as Spain.
I won’t recommend any links or books, that way you can’t accuse me of steering you to sites that reflect my “political” opinion. I actually don’t have a political opinion about global warming, except that it makes a nice stalking horse for those that would further restrict freedom of action for citizens. That one caveat notwithstanding, my opinion of global warming is non-political. I can’t say the same for yours.
Why would that be? What about the science of climatology becomes the province of politics? If the science were settled, then politics might be pressed into service should action be called for, short of that, and we are far short of establishing a link between human activity and global warming, why would one rush about undertaking actions he cannot possibly know are harmful, helpful, or neither.
Seriously check out that ozone thing. And do some research. Only this time read both sides of the question.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:33 pm
17,000 scientists signed up on a “global warming” warning. (But about 100,000 had been sent the information.) The 17,000 said that it’s the warmest it’s been in 400, or 600, or 1,000 years. (If you’re the “experts”, what is it: 400 -600 -or 1,000 years?) And if is “as warm as”, then it had to be as warm as now back, say, 600 years ago. So, in 1400 what was the best selling SUV? Just wondered.