EnviroLink Forum

Notice how Tim is the one deciding how the IPCC is to be read?

I.E: he's the one claiming the changes are. in fact, not that big of deal....

But can he show us from said IPCC that this is their conclusion, as well?

Do you have anything which shows that the IPCC has underestimated the probelm?

Do you have anything which shows how the degree of chance as described by the IPCC will cause significant trouble?

That matters how? Other than being your favorite unsupported talking point?



You mean significant trouble for the average person or your definition of significan trouble? You seem to have a significantly different definition than normal.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes, notice it is me that has read the report. Well the numbers in it.

You could argue that the increase in road trafic acidents in China will lead to the entire Chinees people being killed by cars. You could produce a few fancy graphs and extrapolate the odd trend line to demonstrate this. You could do this. You would be talking bollox.

The headlines in the IPCC/Enviromentalist news always have the maximum "we are doomed" take on everything. It sells news papers better that "That's allright then".

To come to sensable conclusions you must delve deeper into the story and take on board the actual numbers.

If we are to live in a democray we cannot allow any important subject to be left to the activist alone. Esepecially one as important as this.

And? What are your qualifications to determine those numbers indicate a specific level of concern?



But if the experts in the field, state there is a huge problem with traffic safety in China who are you (general use) to disagree with them? It seems in that case you (general use) are more likey to be talking bollox than they.



So you disagree with the opinion of the experts who generated the numbers as to what level of risk they consider is expressed? Your qualifications to make such a determination are what exactly?



Just like the North Carolina government tried to pass a law making the projected sea-level rise illegal? The science says what the evidence indicates and the general population are generally clueless.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I, as a citizen of a democracy, am intitled to hold my own views.

That I can justify these ideas from reported scientific numbers means that I am reasonably informed about the subject.

Because I am a plumber/builder by profession I am able to understand the amount of work that would be needed to add 2 feet to a sea defence or create a new 2 foot high sea defence. Although anyone who has ever watched a mechanical digger at work will have a fair idea.

It is not unreasonable for me to hold such views. That you are angry because I can sustain them in an interlectual argument is not my problem and suggests that you, deep down, know that your position of great worry about any extreem difficulties due to GW is not valid.

Yes, but that neither makes your views logical nor appropriate for anyone other than yourself and are clearly negated by the views of any other individual



No, it just means that you know where the numbers are not that you are informed past that point, reasonably or otherwise.



Really? So if I watch a digger I will somehow know what the pressure would be on an enclosure with 2 feet of seawater behind it? I would know much additional force it would have to withstand at average storm conditions, what the maximum force to expect would be, and how large the defense would have to be in order to withstand it? To think people go to school for years to learn these fine engineering points that can be learned by simple observation of trades at work. It is implied the defenses will be of soil, where are these inventories of soil to be obtained as there is generally not a lot of excess soil along the coast.



No, but it does not make the views reasonable either. The fact is they do not seem to be reasonable understandings of either the science or the data.



I am not angry that you think you can sustain an intellectual argument, but I am merely pointing out repeating inaccurate and ignorant statements do not make them true. It is your problem when you do so.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

My dad was a civil engineer who built bridges, dams, waterways, spillways, highways on wet soil and a water treatment plant for a city. My interest in hydrology had me thumbing through his books as a kid. The calculus on the introductory pages was far advanced of the second year university math courses. With my new interest in alternate energy, I was learning fluid dynamics and thought being a rocket scientist was easy compared to designing alternative wind turbines and small-size steam turbines. When I had a rough idea what I needed to learn, I returned to hydrology and realized how the fluid dynamics that was so hard about turbines is multiplied several times by the fluid dynamics of water in soils. Add to that the geology of understanding the nature of the thousands of types of clay and how they effect the hydrology of dams... it is amazingly complex stuff. I never touched on the oceanography needed. One of the early projects my dad worked on was securing a pipeline at the shore of the Atlantic Ocean in Quebec. They had spent loads of money securing it 2 times with it breaking free during a storm. My dad's solution was to look at the failed designs and add multipliers to the known oceanographic factors to account for the failures then double that again. That project was the only shoreline pipe securing foundation to last several of the severe storms hitting that region. The moral of that story is even experienced engineers are still guessing at the power of the ocean and have to over-design. Read a bit about storm surges and you will see how even a strong wind from a little thunder storm can raise the ocean level a few feet in places based on the shape of the ocean floor and the direction of the wind. The slightest spill-over will eat the levee away and lead to a catastrophic failure like Katrina's damage in Louisiana.

edit: also note that an engineer building a levee has only one option... failure is not allowed. You can be sure the costs will either be high to make sure it does not fail or the engineer will be a fall-guy heading for early retirement and willing to see catastrophic failure for a nice retirement bonus

There's a bit more to it than that, otherwise I'd be working alongside A/C repairmen. As it stands, they're all engineers.

_________________
TANG SOO!

^As you point out building coastal defences is mostly about anti-storm protection and such stroms can raise the sea level a lot.

Where we already spend money protecting the coast we will, if the sea level rises, need to spend more. A less than 2 feet rise will not cripple the world economy. It will cost less than we spend on trafic lights.

Evidence of this claim is where? A two foot rise in sea level will not just be storm protection, but the storm addition must be included in the calculations. Storm surge can be very bad traveling inland for miles in the low country. A two foot rise in sea level is a two foot storm surge without the storm. The storm surge will be added on top of the rise.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Yes, but then the existing defences are built to deal with it so the additional work will need to raise the defences by 2 feet to cope with the less than 2 feet sea level rise. Not hard.

An uniformed opinion that it will not be hard? This shows a marked lack of understanding of engineering. Adding two feet onto sea defenses is not the same as buiilding a two foot berm. The entire base for the previous defense will have to be strengthened at best and replaced at worst.

So where is your evidence so that we can see how hard the experts think it may be?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

as usual for me I will turn to rodents. Beaver dams that have stood the test of time get deeper by only a few inches for hundreds of yards of more dam. This is because the world is generally flat so to hold back water, you need to go much wider for only a small gain in height of protection. I already mentioned the pizza factor but I will mention it again. A 10 inch pizza is half the size of a 12 inch pizza. When you are looking to increase the height of a levee, the cross-sectional area of the levee will increase by a factor of 4 for doubling the height (imagine one triangle then imagine four triangles stacked together to make a triangle that is twice the height). This also does not take into account the weight of the upper part of the bigger dam forcing the lower part down. This flow of wet soil causes the need to make the base much wider as the height and weight of the levee to grow. The soil below the new levee will also compress causing the need to add yet more material and soil stabilizing foundations of concrete and steel. This turns a little pile of dirt into an engineering challenge requiring complex physics to determine the minimal concrete and steel needed. So, a levee that is twice as high will likely cost 10 times as much to build... or much more if they levee needs to be many times as long to keep the higher level from just going around the levee.

The idea that all we need to do is build a few walls here and there to keep the sea out is crazy.
First of all the sea level prediction of around 2 ft by 2100 is a global average, due to weather effects and geological factors this figure will vary from zero to more than twice that.
The second point is that the sea level rise will not magically stop on the 1st January 2101 at this point sea level will be accelerating. The predictions for the following century start around an extra 4 ft and thats assuming we take some serious actions to prevent further GHGs emissions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmW_EQzU_qI&feature=player_detailpage

_________________
Pollution is not the solution