tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post114386914210327774..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: 200th Post: Correction on Global WarmingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144465542088540602006-04-07T21:05:00.000-06:002006-04-07T21:05:00.000-06:00A minor digression...I understand that the much qu...A minor digression...<BR/>I understand that the much quoted '230 feet' is an error, because as the sea rises (due to extra water, rather than any geologic factor) the area that needs to be covered (therefore the volume) increases (as land floods). This extra area reduces the final increase in height. Imagine it as filling an upturned cone- if the rate of flow stays constant the speed of filling slows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144263201335429042006-04-05T12:53:00.000-06:002006-04-05T12:53:00.000-06:00Well, I agree that Bush's science policy is irres...Well, I agree that Bush's science policy is irresponsible and dishonest, but I don't think a sea level rise of 6m can be considered a weapon of mass destruction for a simple reason: time. No terrorist gives 100 years of advance warning - it would render their attack useless. People, and even their homes, will have plenty of time to get out of the way of any projected sea level rise, if they choose.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that there are some truly troublesome aspects to potential global climate change; but sea level rise just isn't a credible threat. It's too slow.<BR/><BR/>Sea level rising 6m in one hour would be a major disaster that would probably involve severe loss of life. Over one day, probably nobody would die as a direct result, but quite a lot would become homeless or suffer significant property damage. Over 100 years, while some homes will be destroyed, the inhabitants will have plenty of time to build new ones. How many coastal buildings or structures haven't been built or extensively remodeled/renovated in the last 100 years? How many do you expect to remain untouched over the next 100 years?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144009810647780292006-04-02T14:30:00.000-06:002006-04-02T14:30:00.000-06:00I have to agree, the Bush administration's cuts to...I have to agree, the Bush administration's cuts to science programs is inexcusable. I can't remember the person who said it, but the most important thing we can do in climate science is to make sure that in the next 100 years we have a better data gathering network than we did in the previous 100. We're not even close to that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1143950453293655812006-04-01T21:00:00.000-07:002006-04-01T21:00:00.000-07:00"This evidence proves that I was not as careful in..."This evidence proves that I was not as careful in checking those facts as I should have been. I morally ought to have given these claims another look. I will remember this and try that much harder <B>not</B> to avoid similar mistakes in the future."<BR/><BR/>...Just going to chock this one up to April Fool's Day... Otherwise Very good article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com