No. The focus is on misrepresenting anything progressive thinkers do or say.
For example, government loan guarantees for green-energy companies are a good way to “encourage free market solutions”, no? Goerge W. Bush certainly thought so, since it was his program that led to loans to Solyndra. And, as any serious investor knows, if all your investments succeed it means that your investments are not aggressive enough.
So one loan guaranteed under Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 fails, and the anti-Obama anti-AGW crowd gets so excited they had to double their consumption of Imodium®.
Well, he is actually right in that voices on the left do see it as a political opportunity. Naomi Klein & etc. or rather that there is no other way of dealing with the problem than international cooperation.
The mystery is that you’re using the volumetric coefficient, shouldn’t h be volume, and ∆h would be in cubic meters? Just post your numbers, I’m sure that will make it completely clear.
But we do agree that the melting ice is the bigger threat. Just add three feet to your sea-walls in the next 100 years, it’s not that hard. There’s a multitude of videos on YouTube showing the tsunami hitting Japanese sea-walls from a few years ago. This will show what can be built, each community can make their own choice I suppose.
While this thread is about global warming (and climate denial), and acknowledging that science denial in general is far more common on the right, left-wingers are not immune from having politics/ideology swamp critical thinking capacity.
I looked at the issue before, suffice to say anti GMO groups have pointed before (for their propaganda) the support that they get also from independents and conservatives. This is mostly a NIMBY issue and I have pointed before that biologists like Sir Paul Nurse are very leftists but they are in favor of GMO because he had direct knowledge about the issue. Nurse also does crack the heads of climate change deniers at the BBC BTW.
For my part I’m on the record of busting the ones that come with anti GMO info in the message board regardless that they come from the left side of the isle, but this is an issue that also has to deal with ignorant conservatives.
I don’t know what you mean by “post your numbers” as that’s exactly what I did. The equation is straightforward and you get 0.45m sea level rise for each degree of temperature rise by multiplying 3000 by the appropriate coefficient of expansion. Of course these are just approximations that will be off depending on the actual temperature and pressure gradients, and in the real world you don’t get uniform ocean warming, but I’m just illustrating how the thermal expansion calculation is done.
And no, the result given by the formula is meters, not cubic meters – look at the units. You said it yourself before: “the ocean margins are quite literally set in stone, the oceans have no place to expand but in the vertical”. Not exactly true but close enough. Think about water in a straight-sided glass. When the water warms and expands, its rise in level in the glass is directly proportional to its total increase in volume. Indeed volumetric thermal expansion is the only meaningful such metric for a liquid. You can calculate a theoretical linear coefficient – indeed, your figure of 69 is just 207 divided by 3 – but it usually doesn’t mean anything useful for a contained liquid. That’s why your calculation was in fact off by a factor of exactly 3 given your (also incorrect) assumptions about non-saline pure water at a uniform 20°C and atmospheric pressure.
Here is a table of the thermal properties of sea water from an online textbook which confirms that the coefficients I used are more or less correct. You can see that at zero pressure and zero salinity the coefficient of thermal expansion is exactly the volumetric coefficient for pure water given at the previously cited Wikipedia link. Further down, one sees that at zero pressure and typical sea water salinity of 35 parts per thousand the coefficient is 2.57 for 20°C and 2.97 for 25°C, which is reasonably consistent with my quoted 2.7 for 22°C. Similarly, you can work through the numbers for depth and temperature to see that the deep-ocean coefficient is right, too, recalling that it’s for 2°C at a pressure of 300 bar which is about 3000m deep. The table doesn’t have 3000 exactly but 2000 and 4000 decibars of pressure corresponds to roughly 2000 and 4000 meters of water depth so you can extrapolate between them. You’ll note that the coefficient of expansion actually increases with pressure, but is countered by the assumption of lower temperature in the deep sea.
But yes, we can agree that melting ice is increasingly the bigger threat.
You can’t always simply add height to structures. The foundations may not be engineered for the additional weight.
Also, sea-walls would need to be extended. There aren’t any sea walls at all, for instance, protecting Washington D.C., but if the sea level rises, such walls would be needed to prevent inundation. An entire new system of walls would be needed, for many cities. Indeed, for some entire countries.
Things like a carbon tax, which encourages companies to come up with new solutions to reduce carbon and thus reduce prices, seems like an excellent free market solution. Far better than imposing any existing or proposed technology on the market.
Ezra Levant has always been a Sophistic, manipulative and condescending far right blowhard. I debated him a couple time back in university. He is a lying prick.
Adding three feet of concrete in 100 years is easy enough for rich urban areas. I can’t imagine New York or London going short of bulldozers and cement.
Three feet by 2100 is a conservative IPCC view (they say), Hansen just said we might get 18 feet in 50 years. Nobody really knows.
We should not forget that we are trying to control emissions to prevent such an scenario and if we elect a Republican we can only expect no leadership whatsoever for 4 or 8 tears more, not to mention that the Republicans will only ensure that the profits for the fossil fuel industry remain secure for a long time. While all taxpayers and many other corporations will pay most of the burden to deal with higher ocean rises as a result.
“They appreciate each other because they both so much enjoy [COLOR=Red]lying to the public.”
[/COLOR]Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.
I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.
David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments
15 July 2011
∆v = (3,000 m[sup]3[/sup]) x (2.5 x 10[sup]-4[/sup] ºC[sup]-1[/sup]) x (1ºC) = 0.75 m[sup]3[/sup] … then divide by lateral area (0.75 m[sup]3[/sup])/(1 m[sup]2[/sup]) = 0.75 m
… so, no, I have no idea where your 0.45 m figure comes from.
So now you’re saying your original 0.2m was wrong and you’ve come up with another wrong answer! Where does 2.5 come from? Try using 1.5 x 10[sup]-4[/sup] ºC[sup]-1[/sup] which is the figure I posted for the deep ocean and comes closest to matching the majority of the temperature/pressure characteristics of the 3000m in question. And viola! 0.45m. It’s actually more than that because some of it is warmer upper ocean, but according to my cited textbook it’s a good enough approximation. Climate models that need better accuracy generally use lookup tables for each depth.
You’re also needlessly confounding yourself with cubic and area measures. I could show you the detailed derivation of that equation but it’s easier to conceptualize it in terms of that glass of water example I gave. The vertical rise or fall of the water in the glass with any temperature change is exactly proportional to its volumetric coefficient of expansion. Thus if there is 10 cm of water in a glass at 20ºC and its temperature rises 1ºC, the water will rise exactly 0.00207 cm (if I’ve tracked my zeroes correctly! :D).