An Inconvenient Truth

Oh my god, look what climate changed did to the Netherlands!Oh wait, they have engineering...I don't see why New Orleans couldn't use the Netherlands model. And I should note that both suffer issues of being deltas. This was made worse for Lousiana (and if I remember right that included NO) because of what the army corps of engineers did to the Mississippi river. Subsidence (which I believe you were discussing at the end there) is a major issue and only one that is going to increase with time. Thus Louisiana and NO are fated for the sea regardless of sea level change, without human intervention.I might add that estimates I have seen show only a 1m (~3 ft) rise in sea level in the next 100 years, with a potential max of 4m (~13 ft) over a larger time than that.I like the discussion pointing towards solutions to CO2 emission/accumulation, rather than stretching the boundaries of what we can claim its effects could be.Can I ask if this is the kind of material found in Gore's movie?Edited by holmes, : replacing images that were too huge, with links to their pages.Edited by AdminNWR, : fixed broken link (removed quotes for dbcode url)

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's a good question, as well as your point about types of land uncovered. That is why I stated that it is a potential and not a certainty.But the facts are not quite as dire as you make out either. Here is a map of the world.You should be able to see that there are vast tracts of land above latitutes that are currently unfarmable. This includes Alaska and Canda, both of which do have nutrient rich soil which can grow crops (of course there is no guarantee that the entire area uncovered would be rich soil.Step farming on mountains is a possibility, as well as aquaculture (which would be increased). But let's leave that alone for discussion.The question is if we will have MORE arable land than now. And that is a valid question. Certainly more will come available with rising temps and deglaciation, but will that offset losses in currently farmable land?Let's see more discussion of that, with evidence, rather than this... If they aren't willing to engineer their coastlines, which is a big assumption in itself, I'd suggest moving to a city or into the mountains.How many are going to be displaced... evidence please. I wholly disagreed with your claim that it was unimpeachable, which to my mind is a statement about conclusions rather than the data points themselves.I do agree that two people can have different interpretations, and more importantly come to a different opinion on what to do about a situation presented by the data.Unfortunately you are making factual misstatements about some of the data. And that can't just be "agreed to disagree" about. That is not solely about a different interpretation.On your other question about Gore's movie, I have no way to see it at this point in time. Given my strange political/economic status I can't even rent things online (if it were able to be rented online) and I just don't know where you snag it to download for free. Edited by AdminNWR, : fixed broken link (removed quotes)

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay I see your point, though I think a combo of what the Dutch did to the Ijselmeer, as well as for Rotterdam, with a lock system in between would be equally valid... and that's if we decided NOLA had to remain the main port area. We could have intracontinental shipping based from NOLA, yet place a port outside NOLA area for international shipping. I do agree with your points, though I don't believe "worst case" of rise is as graphic as you have made out. Again all the data I have seen is 1 m in 100 years and 4m in a bit more time than that. Of course, now that I think about it maybe they should plan for greater extremes than we have data for, that way if we are wrong one way or the other they have the ability to last. Someone get me a barfbag.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

damn damn damn... I'll try and remember. The problem is that for other things I write I need to included it, and so I forget that here. EvC no quotes on urls, starting now!

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Okay, its been a few years since my geo class which dealt with that, but I don't think your claim is accurate. Glaciers scour land as they move inward, with the weight pressing down as it grows. As it retreats, which is generally just melting/evaporation, and not physical movement, material is "dropped" in place.While some places would be scoured to bedrock, I'm not sure it is confident to say all would be. I lived in an area whose fertility was the result of deglaciation. This included leaving behind small lakes. THIS is important info... and much of why I said it was only a potential. I am not certain of much of Canada's ground quality for agriculture. I did think that Alaska had some good potential for growing crops. I read that in certain sections they get great returns (almost oversized food). But maybe that is different than engaging in intensive agriculture.In any case, its not like we are talking about having to shift all agriculture to previously glaciated terrain. The question is how much current terrain would actually be lost to flooding/drought, and given that would we have enough to compensate.Given the dutch model, I am still dubious as to whether we'd lose crops to flooding at all. That's another excellent point.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think some of your list is a little padded...Pts 1-4- Exist currently. Any changes due to CC will NOT be so rapid that it cannot be handled with foresight or planning we already employ. I mean we have droughts and floods as it is, sometimes some huge ones. We are only discuss an increase in such conditions over time, with some becoming a somewhat permanent situation.Pt 4 in particular- Is troubling to me as an argument. If we have more water in the atmosphere, and likely more rain, and immense flooding from rising water levels, it seems like getting water to land is going to be less of a problem rather than more of a problem. Unless we are discussing increased salinization of previously fresh supplies to the extent that farming becomes impossible, why will CC change what we already face?Pts 5-6- Are solid issues which even slow CC might result in. Its about investment time, energy, and money required to replace any losses with new territory. I'd love to see some estimates on this. I don't think this would be insurmountable, but it does mean cost.Pt 6 (unfriendly nation)- Is a particularly important point. We can talk about all the money and time and energy the US has to overcome the problem, but if we DO lose enough farming land that we must start getting food from outside the US... oh boy. And it seems that would be a really nice selling point in this argument. The US is already concerned about our reliance on foreign nations for oil, do we want to become dependent on other nations for raw food material? That would be a huge role reversal, and you'd think you could get enough of middle America to agree that shouldn't happen that they at least take a look ahead. But this still needs some credible science to support it. How much of our farmland are we likely to lose?Pt 8- This is a totally moot point. That happens anyway. Its not like the earth is human or agriculture friendly. Conditions may change slightly more rapidly in an overall sense, but its always been a year to year boom or bust. And it is not that its going to be so changeable that we'll have glaciers in wheat fields one year, then to drought the next, then to wheat fields, then back to drought or freezing temps.This is not to say you aren't discussing problems in agriculture, just I'm not seeing how CC is going to make most of them any greater than what we already face.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)