Let's Be Sensible Please

[All_In 0]

Conjoined bodies of water displace equally. If polar ice cap melting is the cause of rising oceans, then the worlds oceans (that are connected in any way) will rise at a concurrent rate. They will not rise in some places and remain stable in others....

yep, u know more than the experts. congrats.edit: btw, the image from your avatar..that vid is priceless.

[scram 1]

Those "experts" are purporting a theory (and a pretty wild one at that) that flies in the face of all known fluid dynamics (which seems to be a trend in a lot of "Environmental Sciences" these days) It's kinda like how there are "experts" who say that 9/11 was really plotted in the Oval Office by a man who can't even speak the Kings English- they even make a case by abstractly conjoining a number of facts- yet they're still absolutely lacking in anything solid that can be cited as irrefutable fact. (OH GOD, JANICE, I'M GUNNA DIE... HELP ME JANICE...)

[All_In 0]

Those "experts" are purporting a theory (and a pretty wild one at that) that flies in the face of all known fluid dynamics (which seems to be a trend in a lot of "Environmental Sciences" these days) It's kinda like how there are "experts" who say that 9/11 was really plotted in the Oval Office by a man who can't even speak the Kings English- they even make a case by abstractly conjoining a number of facts- yet they're still absolutely lacking in anything solid that can be cited as irrefutable fact. (OH GOD, JANICE, I'M GUNNA DIE... HELP ME JANICE...)

haha, i LOL'd nicely..and had to watch it again..what exactly is impossible about rising coastlines in certain parts of the world? the height above sea-level varies from place to place. that's why bangladesh experiences a lot of floods, not to mention how low new orleans lies.and i never mentioned a 9/11 conspiracy. people can think alike about certain things, yet disagree about other things (i agree that the fat kid is hilarious). try not to lump everything into 'left' and 'right', at least not lump me into that absolute.

[scram 1]

It is possible for all coastlines to see an increase in ocean height because of rising oceans, impacting certain areas more than others due to their relationship with sea level, but to say that ocean levels will rise in some areas and not in others because of the introduction of water via melting glaciers (which themselves already account in the oceans overall volume- be they ice or liquid- due to their displacement) is contrary to what's known about fluid dynamics. Fill a glass with ice, then fill it with water. Let it sit until the ice melts.Does the glass start overflowing as the ice turns into liquid water?I was not saying you mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was simply pointing out that there are "experts" who say things that are completely wrong.

[ghoti 0]

It is possible for all coastlines to see an increase in ocean height because of rising oceans, impacting certain areas more than others due to their relationship with sea level, but to say that ocean levels will rise in some areas and not in others because of the introduction of water via melting glaciers (which themselves already account in the oceans overall volume- be they ice or liquid- due to their displacement) is contrary to what's known about fluid dynamics. Fill a glass with ice, then fill it with water. Let it sit until the ice melts.Does the glass start overflowing as the ice turns into liquid water?I was not saying you mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was simply pointing out that there are "experts" who say things that are completely wrong.

You seem to have gone from arguing that melting glaciers will raise sea level evenly to melting glaciers will not raise sea level at all. Although I may have misunderstood you.For the "not at all" argument you have applied Archimedes principle. However this only applies to floating ice. Yes if you have an ice cube floating in a glass of water, then when the ice melts the water level will stay the same. Consider instead the case where you "fill" a glass with as many ice cubes as you can, then add water until the water level is (say) half way up the glass. In this case the ice is not floating, therefore the water level before melting is not displaced by the full mass of the ice. In this case when the ice melts the water level in the glass will go up. If floating sea ice, as in the arctic ocean, melts it does not raise sea level. If grounded ice, such as mountain glaciers or the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, melt they will raise sea level.Now the question is, would melting Greenland (for example) raise sea level equally everywhere, which was the original point. It would not. The principle of fluid dynamics that applies is that the free surface of the fluid will conform to an equipotential surface, the sea surface is everywhere at the same gravitational "height" (the equipotential surface that corresponds to the ocean surface is called the geoid). The key point is that the strength of gravity and hence the height of the ocean surface depends on the distribution of mass in, on and around the Earth, and that this distribution of mass (and hence the position of the geoid) varies both spatially and through time. A clear example of this is tides, the changing gravitational force associated with the motion of the Moon causes the ocean level to rise in some places while falling in others, with all locations seeing both rises and falls over the course of a day. Similarly, the ice sheets have a gravitational pull on the oceans and therefore distort the shape of the geoid, the ice sheets pull water towards themselves. If the ice melts, that localised gravitational pull is no longer there, the shape of the geoid will be different and sea level will adjust. Because the ice is not uniformly distributed over the Earth, the gravitational effect of the ice is not uniform and the change in sea level is not uniform. Not sure if this makes the argument any clearer or not.

[Zeatrix 0]

Wow, that post was excellent, when I read scram's first post i was going to write a post about the moons pull and so forth but you wrote it so much better than I could ever have done.Your post also brings one vital human trait to attention. We all too often dismiss a theory because we know of one other theory that in itself disproves that the first theory could be correct. All too often this is wrong.Scram was right. If it was that fluid dynamics all by themselves decided where water is placed then he would be right, but he forgot that changing gravitational pulls also affects it.This very phenomenon is why many people dismiss global warming. They know of one single theory (or maybe a few) that in itself makes global warming not plausible, for example, the earths average temperature has changed over the course of history. What they all forget is that this is so complex that you can't draw such conclusions. Unfortunately most research about global warming is presented in a simplified way so that people with no prior knowledge about the subject can grasp it, this simplification confuses people. Too bad...

[Balloon guy 158]

3 Weeks ago I was at a fishing lodge in Alaska, the tidal changes were 19 feet every 6 hours. I was dumbfounded by the energy and amounts of water that were involved in this 200 mile long by 25 mile inlet to move this much water in this short a time.The moon's gravity is an amazing force.Now back to what I really know more about: Cheap political stabs at AlGore:Compare these two houses:

House 1: The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence.Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, which uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all."This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home. (Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.) House 2: This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)

Would it surprise you to know:House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

3 Weeks ago I was at a fishing lodge in Alaska, the tidal changes were 19 feet every 6 hours. I was dumbfounded by the energy and amounts of water that were involved in this 200 mile long by 25 mile inlet to move this much water in this short a time.The moon's gravity is an amazing force.Now back to what I really know more about: Cheap political stabs at AlGore:Campre these two houses:Would it surprise you to know:House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to "Carbon NeutrAl" Gore and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.

FYP...I believe he officially changed his name.

[Zeatrix 0]

Compare these two houses:Would it surprise you to know:House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.

No, I'm not surprised that a 20 room house that is partially used as the office for two people consumes A LOT more than a 4 room building that is rarely used by people. Besides, all the energy consumed on the Gore mansion is produced by wind or solar power... :DBesides, where did you find that text, let me guess it was kind of right-slanted

[Balloon guy 158]

No, I'm not surprised that a 20 room house that is partially used as the office for two people consumes A LOT more than a 4 room building that is rarely used by people. Besides, all the energy consumed on the Gore mansion is produced by wind or solar power... :DBesides, where did you find that text, let me guess it was kind of right-slanted

Right-slanted text is my favorite kind.Normally I would point out how liberals always try to discredit the source when confronted with facts they don't like, but since you and I have broke bread I will not go that route.Actually I was sent an email telling me why I needed to register my cell phone with the national do-not-call list or else, so I went to snopes.com to find out the validity of it, and while perusing, i found this bit of delicious liberal bashing hypocrisy. Life is good

[JohnJones (JJ) 0]

This is one of "those" subjects. You cant ever get people to agree with you nor will you all just agree to disagree. Well, here's the inside scoop, there has always been changes in the world and its climate, the world will always be ever changing with or without the presence of man. But we "could" be making the changes occur faster but if there inevitable changes what does it matter anyhow?Translation = I dont know none of us do, but no one will do anything unless they see the effect with there own two eyes. By witch time im sure it'll be too late and we will all be toast.

[Zeatrix 0]

This is one of "those" subjects. You cant ever get people to agree with you nor will you all just agree to disagree. Well, here's the inside scoop, there has always been changes in the world and its climate, the world will always be ever changing with or without the presence of man. But we "could" be making the changes occur faster but if there inevitable changes what does it matter anyhow?Translation = I dont know none of us do, but no one will do anything unless they see the effect with there own two eyes. By witch time im sure it'll be too late and we will all be toast.

I haven't seen the effects with my own eyes, but I'm still trying to do something about it. Read my third quote in my sig btw...

[Zeatrix 0]

Right-slanted text is my favorite kind.Normally I would point out how liberals always try to discredit the source when confronted with facts they don't like, but since you and I have broke bread I will not go that route.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But you need to understand one thing, I'm neither democratn or republican. I do however recognize that both parties do good and bad things (according to me) and I will gladly admit that I somewhat favor democrats. On the other hand, I think your governor is doing an excellent job, with my limited knowledge of internal Californian affairs.But, you have to agree that when you first see a text that describes Bush's house in extreme detail and how good it is and then see a text that basically says nothing about the other house, except how bad it is, that the text isn't very objective. Also, the text about the Gore mansion does not quote any sources directly, instead quoting radio talkshows and such that in turn are quoting the press release of a clearly slanted "think tank" in the first place :DTrust me, if it was the other way around, I'd be the first one to point it out too...

[seemorenuts 0]

I guess you are being a little funny, but the sad part is that people ACTUALLY think like that.The whole "if everyone else ain't doing it, why should I" mentality that a big part of the worlds population inhibit is so scary to me that I sometimes crawl up in a corner and shake uncontrollably. On another positive note: Recently I've been seeing A LOT of hybrid cars (mainly Priuses) driving around in Sweden. I guess they must be selling fairly good, which is encouraging. Ethanol cars are also growing in popularity.My dream car for sure would be a hybrid car that runs on 100% ethanol, that'd be sweet

It doesn't matter how funny I'm being, I'm focusing on the only bottleneck that matters.You live in a very evolved society, people know what their stakes are, everyone has a franchise.Most of the people on this planet either have no franchise, or are deluded into thinking that their wealth makes them immune.Until you realize how to communicate a vision that the entire range of human existence can embrace, you're just fooling yourself. Go to a place where most people burn wood to subsist and tell them about your hybrid cars, and then you'll get the picture.I had this discussion in biology class 28 years ago and there was no answer to my question then either...OT:As for balloon guy thinking I was wrong about sex scandals plaguing the Republicans rather than the Democrats (who are just thiefs, usually); say hello to your new gay friend, Senator Craig, lol.OT:Oh, and because I can, here's a cool article a buddy of mine sent me, to enrich this thread (not to derail it):http://mail.google.com/mail/?realattid=f_f...14d712dd4687206

[akoff 0]

House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas. House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.

You can’t really be surprised by this, can you? It is consistent with Al gore and the Democratic party in general….do as I say you should do!! Thanks Al!!

[Zeatrix 0]

Oh, and because I can, here's a cool article a buddy of mine sent me, to enrich this thread (not to derail it):http://mail.google.com/mail/?realattid=f_f...14d712dd4687206

Did you just link directly to one of your own e-mails on gmail? That's an F in computer savviness.

[leftygolfer 7]

[nutzbuster 7]

[ghoti 0]

That's brilliant, I'm using that the next chance I get.

[All_In 0]

Arctic ice ebbs to record level: scientistsBy Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent 1 hour, 13 minutes agoWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arctic sea ice melted to its lowest level ever this week, shattering a record set in 2005 and continuing a trend spurred by human-caused global warming, scientists said on Thursday.ADVERTISEMENT"It's the biggest drop from a previous record that we've ever had and it's really quite astounding," said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.Sea ice freezes and melts seasonally, but never has it ebbed to this small a patch, the data center said in a statement. Compared to 2005, the previous record-low year for Arctic sea ice, this year saw a decrease of more than 386,100 square miles.That is about the size of Texas and California combined, or nearly five times the size of the United Kingdom, the center said. It is more than double the drop between 2005 and 2002, the previous record-holding year."That's a dramatic change in one year," Meier said of this year's sea ice decrease. "Certainly we've been on a downward trend for the last 30 years or so, but this is really accelerating the trend."The minimum amount of ice occurred on Sunday and freezing has already begun in some places, according to satellite imagery used by the center.EARTH'S AIR CONDITIONERMelting sea ice, unlike the melting glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica, does not contribute to global sea level rise, much as an ice cube in a glass of water does not make the level of liquid rise when it melts.However, without the bright white of sea ice to reflect the sun's rays, the Earth loses what some climate scientists call its air conditioner. The less ice there is, the more dark water there is to absorb the warming solar radiation.This year's record was caused by a "perfect storm" of interacting factors, Meier said by telephone.These included a long-running high pressure system that kept skies cloudless over the Arctic, along with a circulation pattern that pushed ice out of the Arctic towards Greenland, instead of letting it circle around the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska as it usually does.Also, there was thinner ice to begin with, Meier said.While this particular year's ice minimum cannot be directly attributed to anthropogenic -- human-caused -- global climate change, the trend that brought it about can, he said."This year, the reason why (the ice) was so low was not because there's more anthropogenically generated carbon dioxide dumped in the last year, it's because of this high pressure ... but you can't really explain the overall trend without invoking anthropogenically global warming," Meier said.He also noted that the decrease in Arctic sea ice was forecast in models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which this year said with 90 percent probability that global warming exists and that human activities contribute to it.However, the sea ice is diminishing much faster than any of the models predicted, Meier said.More information and images are available at http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaicemin...0810_index.html

[All_In 0]

Rising seas likely to flood U.S. history(bold added)Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.Global warming — through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding — is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians — the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California."We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what — the question is when."Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."This week, beginning with a meeting at the United Nations on Monday, world leaders will convene to talk about fighting global warming. At week's end, leaders will gather in Washington with President Bush.Experts say that protecting America's coastlines would run well into the billions and not all spots could be saved.And it's not just a rising ocean that is the problem. With it comes an even greater danger of storm surge, from hurricanes, winter storms and regular coastal storms, Boesch said. Sea level rise means higher and more frequent flooding from these extreme events, he said.All told, one meter of sea level rise in just the lower 48 states would put about 25,000 square miles under water, according to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. That's an area the size of West Virginia.The amount of lost land is even greater when Hawaii and Alaska are included, Overpeck said.The Environmental Protection Agency's calculation projects a land loss of about 22,000 square miles. The EPA, which studied only the Eastern and Gulf coasts, found that Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina would lose the most land. But even inland areas like Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia also have slivers of at-risk land, according to the EPA.This past summer's flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans' Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands — which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes — are previews of what's to come there.Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA's director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said."Sea level rise is going to have more general impact to the population and the infrastructure than almost anything else that I can think of," said S. Jeffress Williams, a U.S. Geological Survey coastal geologist in Woods Hole, Mass.Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.Williams says it's "not unreasonable at all" to expect that much in 100 years. "We've had a third of a meter in the last century."The change will be a gradual process, one that is so slow it will be easy to ignore for a while."It's like sticking your finger in a pot of water on a burner and you turn the heat on, Williams said. "You kind of get used to it." Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_sc/rising_seas

[seemorenuts 0]

yeah, zeatrix, I knew it wouldn't work when I pasted it, I guess it just shows that I should care more.still haven't really addressed the issue that's the bottleneck--why should people care (assuming all that you say is 100% true and worst case scenarios), that's the big problem... the science to me is not the main issue at all.

[Loismustdie 0]

Rising seas likely to flood U.S. history(bold added)Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.Global warming — through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding — is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians — the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California."We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what — the question is when."Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."This week, beginning with a meeting at the United Nations on Monday, world leaders will convene to talk about fighting global warming. At week's end, leaders will gather in Washington with President Bush.Experts say that protecting America's coastlines would run well into the billions and not all spots could be saved.And it's not just a rising ocean that is the problem. With it comes an even greater danger of storm surge, from hurricanes, winter storms and regular coastal storms, Boesch said. Sea level rise means higher and more frequent flooding from these extreme events, he said.All told, one meter of sea level rise in just the lower 48 states would put about 25,000 square miles under water, according to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. That's an area the size of West Virginia.The amount of lost land is even greater when Hawaii and Alaska are included, Overpeck said.The Environmental Protection Agency's calculation projects a land loss of about 22,000 square miles. The EPA, which studied only the Eastern and Gulf coasts, found that Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina would lose the most land. But even inland areas like Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia also have slivers of at-risk land, according to the EPA.This past summer's flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans' Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands — which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes — are previews of what's to come there.Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA's director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said."Sea level rise is going to have more general impact to the population and the infrastructure than almost anything else that I can think of," said S. Jeffress Williams, a U.S. Geological Survey coastal geologist in Woods Hole, Mass.Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.Williams says it's "not unreasonable at all" to expect that much in 100 years. "We've had a third of a meter in the last century."The change will be a gradual process, one that is so slow it will be easy to ignore for a while."It's like sticking your finger in a pot of water on a burner and you turn the heat on, Williams said. "You kind of get used to it." Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_sc/rising_seas

I guess living in Arizona was a good idea,then. I see good things a coming.

[Zeatrix 0]

still haven't really addressed the issue that's the bottleneck--why should people care (assuming all that you say is 100% true and worst case scenarios), that's the big problem... the science to me is not the main issue at all.

Well, at least in my mind, for several reasons. Let's start where you (you as in a general disbeliever) probably don't care about and end where you care (at least that I think you care). If the projections of how the climate will change in the future turn out to be reasonably correct then the first thing that will happen is to make living harsher for people who have it harsh today. Some of the worlds poorest areas are either very low above water (Bangladesh) or very warm as it is (Africa). A flooding of Bangladesh will result in millions of people have to move from where they are, making them refugees in their own land, for a poor country this is catastrophic. Africa on the other hand has trouble producing food as it is to feed everyone and if Africa becomes even drier/warmer it won't get easier. You've all heard the catch phrases, "today, 15,000 children die of starvation in Africa". Now this isn't all because of the African climate, the world has a surplus of food, but Africa can't afford to buy, instead they sell food that they need themselves, just to make some money, and we in the western world are very grateful for the cheap food. But I digress, my point is, with even worse conditions for producing food their situation won't get any better, and in a couple of decades we might be saying "today, 30,000 children died of starvation in Africa". Now I know most western citizens can't grasp this (I can't myself frankly), but I think you'd be very disturbed if the same amount of children died a day in the US.Moving on to something you might care more about. I don't know if you enjoy nature, I don't really do as much as many close to me, but even I, who would consider myself a "city boy" do sometimes when I get my ass out into the nature (the real, not some park ) that, man it would suck if we changed the climate so much as to loose some of this. Scientist are predicting that the phenomenon known as global warming will cause great changes in nature. Species will have to move to survive, or in worst case become extinct. Well this has always been the way of nature one might say, survival of the fittest and so on, but, what you forget is that those changes occur over VERY long periods of times, giving evolution a chance to work, now species are dying in such high rates that evolution might not be able to catch up. To sum it up, diversity in nature, both animal and plant life, will be affected negatively.Moving on to what you might care a lot about, economy. Changing all our societies to become more environmental will in some cases be very costly. But, the important part is that, if in fact current science is close to right, it will be a huge profitable investment. If in fact the ocean level rises 1 meter (~3 feet) or more the costs will be enormous, worldwide. Imaging moving everyone who's affected, or trying to make walls to keep the ocean out. Basically all of the Netherlands will be under water! As you can read in the article above, the US would also be affected. Also, if extreme weather becomes more common that is also enormous sums of money going to waste, just look at the monetary losses after Katrina. This is something that would affect every citizen in the US, not just the ones directly affected.Now, there are a brazillion other reasons we should care (according to me), but I picked a few I thought you'd "enjoy".

[fefifofob 0]

Hmmmmm....