That too is generally just an engineering problem.

True, just recently solar panels became more economically viable. Of course that may not be a good thing for the view.

---

Hello everyone :)

Something I posted in another thread that may go a little way to explaining how sea level rise is likely to affect some areas of the planet more than others.

upward motion of Earth's crust

Previous studies have shown Earth is 'rebounding' due to the overlying ice sheet shrinking in response to climate change.

Tipping the bath in one direction whilst adding water to it may not make much difference at one end, but it will lead to a lot of water (where there once wasn't water) somewhere else! You don't have to use a bath - a bowl will do :) watch out for wet feet mind :) Anyway - just me pondering again. :)

I am glad you're okay in Oregon :)... but it's a shame about these guys though :(

"Also, you may not be aware, but the sea level is not the same all over the world, so some areas will see the changes sooner than others. For example, the west coast sea level is higher than the east coast sea level. So you own local observations are not sufficient, what you need is data from all over the globe."

I'm sorry, but that sounds like Twilight Zone stuff to me. Goes against a very basic rule that water seeks its own level. The oceans are interconnected, so according to that very basic rule, they must be at the same mean level...tides aside. As to taking more time to level out, it's a slow process and the Bay of Bangor is just as close to Antarctica or Greenland as the Oregon coast. If it's there it has to be here, too. It's not like the glaciers were melted into a bucket and dumped in the sea all at once.

---

Jack

Hello everyone :)

Something I posted in another thread that may go a little way to explaining how sea level rise is likely to affect some areas of the planet more than others.

upward motion of Earth's crust

Previous studies have shown Earth is 'rebounding' due to the overlying ice sheet shrinking in response to climate change.

Tipping the bath in one direction whilst adding water to it may not make much difference at one end, but it will lead to a lot of water (where there once wasn't water) somewhere else! You don't have to use a bath - a bowl will do :) watch out for wet feet mind :) Anyway - just me pondering again. :)

I am glad you're okay in Oregon :)... but it's a shame about these guys though :(

So now the earth is tipping? What did I miss?

---

Jack

"Also, you may not be aware, but the sea level is not the same all over the world, so some areas will see the changes sooner than others. For example, the west coast sea level is higher than the east coast sea level. So you own local observations are not sufficient, what you need is data from all over the globe."

I'm sorry, but that sounds like Twilight Zone stuff to me. Goes against a very basic rule that water seeks its own level. The oceans are interconnected, so according to that very basic rule, they must be at the same mean level...tides aside. As to taking more time to level out, it's a slow process and the Bay of Bangor is just as close to Antarctica or Greenland as the Oregon coast. If it's there it has to be here, too. It's not like the glaciers were melted into a bucket and dumped in the sea all at once.

Not Twilight zone stuff. Simple Physics.

A glass of water is a closed system, but even in a glass of water external forces can act to change the water level, which is why you probably drink your coffee with a lid on it when you take it in the car.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

That too is generally just an engineering problem. One that is easier and cheaper to solve than sending rockets filled with radioactive waste up into space every 5 years...

Agreed, but there's far more energy to be had in nuclear power than solar. Given our growing energy demands, nuclear has a better chance to keep up than solar or wind.

Hello everyone :)

Something I posted in another thread that may go a little way to explaining how sea level rise is likely to affect some areas of the planet more than others.

upward motion of Earth's crust

Previous studies have shown Earth is 'rebounding' due to the overlying ice sheet shrinking in response to climate change.

Tipping the bath in one direction whilst adding water to it may not make much difference at one end, but it will lead to a lot of water (where there once wasn't water) somewhere else! You don't have to use a bath - a bowl will do :) watch out for wet feet mind :) Anyway - just me pondering again. :)

I am glad you're okay in Oregon :)... but it's a shame about these guys though :(

So now the earth is tipping? What did I miss?

Not tipping. You missed gravitational effects.

How 'bout dA Cycle of Moola Flow during Disasters in udda parts of dA Vrold beside U S A.

Cycle

Udda Part of Vrold Disaster: Money from US Taxpayer and Donations to 'Them' There.

U S A has Disaster(tornado, quake, flood, 'cane, SuperDuperStorm, etc etc etc): Money from Vrold-ZERO.

Cycle

Again

Udda Part of Vrold Disaster: Money from US Taxpayer and Donations to 'Them' There.

U S A has Disaster(tornado, quake, flood, 'cane, SuperDuperStorm, etc etc etc): Money from Vrold-ZERO.

Cycle

Again

Udda Part of Vrold Disaster: Money from US Taxpayer and Donations to 'Them' There.

U S A has Disaster(tornado, quake, flood, 'cane, SuperDuperStorm, etc etc etc): Money from Vrold-ZERO.

On and ON and oN.

Cycle repeats fO evA.

U S A Taxpayer and Charitable Donations Out to dA Vrold. Vrold to U S A - ZERO

Man 'O Live, Dat be som kinda Cyclin'

And fOget 'Bout what comes Our Way through Treaties; Trade Agreements; etc etc etc.

Talkin' 'bout Instant(almost) COLD HARD CASH dat goes Outta Here and to dA Vrold, 'cause of Disasters from...nature? cosmos? Devil? GOD? aahhh Climate Indifference hehehe.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Sometimes I feel like this gent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

---

Jack

Sometimes I feel like this gent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

So you think an island can capsize due to the weight put upon it?

So now the earth is tipping? What did I miss?

The science I think :) or an interesting read :)

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

That too is generally just an engineering problem. One that is easier and cheaper to solve than sending rockets filled with radioactive waste up into space every 5 years...

Agreed, but there's far more energy to be had in nuclear power than solar. Given our growing energy demands, nuclear has a better chance to keep up than solar or wind.

And your source for more nuclear than solar energy is? Quite likely it's wrong - "27 years' worth of worldwide energy consumption equals only one day’s worth of solar energy hitting the earth". More data here, for instance "According to a recent study by PriceWaterHouse Coopers, Europe and North Africa together could by 2050 produce all their electricity from renewables if their respective grids are sufficiently interconnected".

While it may be true that in the short term it's currently easier to produce energy from nuclear sources, in the long term we'll need either an efficient means of capturing energy from the sun or develop fusion.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

That too is generally just an engineering problem. One that is easier and cheaper to solve than sending rockets filled with radioactive waste up into space every 5 years...

Agreed, but there's far more energy to be had in nuclear power than solar. Given our growing energy demands, nuclear has a better chance to keep up than solar or wind.

And your source for more nuclear than solar energy is? Quite likely it's wrong

It would seem that some MIT Engineers have a different view.

This means that a solar powered world produces 63,000 times the waste of a nuclear powered world.

That waste directly translates into nuclear being a better energy option overall.

While it may be true that in the short term it's currently easier to produce energy from nuclear sources, in the long term we'll need either an efficient means of capturing energy from the sun or develop fusion.

I'd agree with you on both fronts: we need a far better means of capturing energy from the sun for it to be viable, with the preference being fusion as the best option.

Solar isn't a viable option for many areas, and wind just doesn't generate enough electricity to make it worthwhile.

That too is generally just an engineering problem. One that is easier and cheaper to solve than sending rockets filled with radioactive waste up into space every 5 years...

Agreed, but there's far more energy to be had in nuclear power than solar. Given our growing energy demands, nuclear has a better chance to keep up than solar or wind.

And your source for more nuclear than solar energy is? Quite likely it's wrong - "27 years' worth of worldwide energy consumption equals only one day’s worth of solar energy hitting the earth". More data here, for instance "According to a recent study by PriceWaterHouse Coopers, Europe and North Africa together could by 2050 produce all their electricity from renewables if their respective grids are sufficiently interconnected".

While it may be true that in the short term it's currently easier to produce energy from nuclear sources, in the long term we'll need either an efficient means of capturing energy from the sun or develop fusion.

That conforms to what I"ve read.

---

we need a far better means of capturing energy from the sun for it to be viable, with the preference being fusion as the best option.

Yes we need to get better at solar, and as far as fusion lots needs to be done if possible and that is a big if.

---

Fusion is not likely to be a solution in the foreseeable future.

Agreed... unfortunately.

Sometimes I feel like this gent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

The congressman is obviously a "changer".

One more thing about so called "super storm" Sandy. Wile it did do massive damage to NYC and the North Jersey Shore fifty miles to the south the Atlantic City area had little damage.

---

Sometimes I feel like this gent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

The congressman is obviously a "changer".

Why would someone want to label people in such a way? ...

"Batter Up" wrote:

"CLYDE" wrote:

What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?

It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.

Oh, nevermind.

Agreed, but there's far more energy to be had in nuclear power than solar. Given our growing energy demands, nuclear has a better chance to keep up than solar or wind.

No, that is a simple matter of having enough of those things around to provide energy. Imagine the power production if you put solar panels on every roof in the United States. And given the increasing efficiency of each new generation of solar panels it is only a matter of time before they produce all the energy we need.

Besides, nuclear is only a temporary solution. It too relies on a finite resource. So why keep doing what are already doing instead of investing in something new and better? Not to mention the danger associated with nuclear power. I mean, think the possible dangers through of what you are suggesting. Not just the shooting rockets with nuclear waste into space bit, but nuclear reactors themselves. Think of what happens when it goes wrong. Sure, proponents of nuclear energy claim that the odds of it going wrong are very small, but in the century that nuclear energy has been around, it has gone wrong twice and there is a pretty long list of incidents where it almost went wrong. Nuclear energy is only safe if it is handled with the utmost care, and Im sorry to say it, but we humans cannot be trusted with such responsibility. And even less so if there is a profit incentive introduced. Time and time again corporations have shown that for them, profit comes before health and safety, they will cut corners on maintenance and safety measures because it means more profit for them, and they will corrupt any oversight agency to the point that they will look the other way. Even more so if they also have to pay for rockets shooting their waste into space. Nuclear energy is fundamentally unsafe when handled by people who want to make a profit. And the consequences of a nuclear disaster are just to destructive. We should not invest in more nuclear energy.