http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837031

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060601-new-orleans.html

Just as I remembered, the New Orleans area is also sinking below Sea Level, too! Both Va Beach/Tidewater area and New Orleans also have like many coastal cities a major river running into the Ocean right through their mid section. Hence the dual problem of keeping their properties from flooding.
The decision to abandon is preceded by this critical thinking:
-what will it cost to properly dam/dyke/levee to ensure that flooding is averted?
-what will it cost to abandon/move all infrastructure/possessions/facilities that are a "must save" to higher ground and rebuild?
-what will it cost to do nothing and suffer the losses?
-what will it cost to  do a partial damming/diking/levee system and move/rebuild only a partial portion of the city?
-which of the above plans is salable to a majority of the population?
-what are the political costs of each of the above?
Regardless of anyone's preconceived biases, this some of the decision making analyses that are required to address the problem! None of which are simple, cheap, or risk free. But ignoring the inevitable will also increase those costs!

aND it falls on the past to REMIND people...
YOU DONT BUILD on a flood plain..
No matter what you do...IT WILL EVENTUALLY FLOOD..

Seems using Wind Farms heats the earth up too.  All part of the pro's and con's to everything we do.  First I'd heard of this though although a year ago I read an article that wind farms do remove "energy" from the air which might affect the local weather. 

So, ignorant as I am, my question would still be to compare the heat gain/energy loss with the same measurements of burning coal.  My gut tells me coal is many times worse.  What is the down side of photo-voltaics?  Whatever they are, the controlling question will again be "compared to what?"

Seems using Wind Farms heats the earth up too.  All part of the pro's and con's to everything we do.  First I'd heard of this though although a year ago I read an article that wind farms do remove "energy" from the air which might affect the local weather. 

So, ignorant as I am, my question would still be to compare the heat gain/energy loss with the same measurements of burning coal.  My gut tells me coal is many times worse.  What is the down side of photo-voltaics?  Whatever they are, the controlling question will again be "compared to what?"

I had not heard that Windmill farms cause delta thermal measurements. But when you think about it for a minute, slowing up the wind, also changes the moisture carrying capacity, plus the lower velocity especially if the wind is ascending from lower altitude, causes moisture to precipitate out. Once this air mass tops the ridges/mountains and descends to lower altitude it slows and and changes temperature upward. I don't fully understand it, but have heard of that before.

Photo-voltaics shield the soil from the Sun which changes the normal environment of soil bacteria, fungi, etc. Also these Solar Cells are made from toxics including Germanium, and other heavy metals.  Silicon in the form of Silica is inert, but this may not be true if it is Silicon metal alloyed with other metals. Wind bourne dirt can erode Solar Panels releasing some amounts of these to the environment if not in a sealed configuration, I would  guess. You might want to Google that idea!

Besides the CO2 from Coal combustion, there are numerous other entrapped toxics released in the process. Sulfur is well known, but there are others like Selenium, Antimony, etc. When working on inspection and repair of the thermal electric plant fireboxes / furnaces / boilers, we had to wear special dust masks plus there was a separate dust sampling collection unit attached which was sent to a laboratory afterwards to be "read"! [The public really does not understand what a few of us have to do to maintain your constant supply of electrons, especially if it is a nuclear plant!]

Yes, there have been some good shows even last week on Mountain Top Removal in Kentucky or Tennessee and how it poisons the water and kills off animals.  Every thing "looks" ok, but everything has been scrambled.  I think there are some unknowns going on......but mostly.....lies.

What "ought to be done" is recognize the long term spoilage and either outlaw it or provide compensation to the violated land owners.  Won't happen, but it is what is supposed to happen.

MS,
I think the numbers are abit skewd..
Its hard to measure things in other nations.  China especially..
Yes, cars are a major concern. but,
1. listing CO2 are the major contaminate??  dont cover the rest of them.
2. the USA is not the major manufacture any more.

As bobbo pointed out, there is one so-called aerial ocean, a term I got from one of the climate change books I've read. Sorry I don't remember which. All CO2 from all sources dumps into the atmosphere. Only one measurement is required to measure it.

Further, the U.S. is still the major cause of CO2 output. It is important to remember that a third of China's CO2 is to manufacture goods for the U.S. So, it is our CO2. We've just outsourced it.

Lastly, there are over 3.7 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere last I looked at the CO2 counter near Penn Station in NYC. Over 1 trillion tons of that are human output of CO2. There are almost 600 billion tons of human CO2 output absorbed by the ocean. That's 1.6 teratons of CO2 we have dumped.

What other pollutant is measured in such quantities?

If that doesn't convince you, consider that at 6 degrees centigrade warmer than pre-industrial times, as a direct result of that non-human caused warming, the Permian/Triassic extinction killed 95% of all multicellular species on the planet. We have already raised temperatures by 1C and are committed, due to the 10 year lag in the effect of the CO2, to another 1C, making a 2C guarantee. That's if we stop all fossil fuel burning and deforestation and other sources of CO2 output today.

We're not stopping.

6C is well within our business as usual forecasts. So, if we do nothing, we guarantee the extinction of 95% of the multicellular life on the planet. Humans being large warm-blooded animals, a category that fares very poorly in mass extinctions, are virtually guaranteed to go extinct in the atmosphere full of toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide gas that did result in the P/T extinction and will again if we see that warming again.

I'm all for cleaning up our other messes too. But, if you want to list something other than CO2 as the number one pollutant, you must show that it will cause 95% of all multicellular life on the planet to go extinct or that you have another toxin of which we have dumped 1.6 trillion tons into the biosphere.

Good luck.

I think you are severely underestimating the effects and certainty of climate change.

: ECA  March 06, 2012, 05:16:31 PM

MS,
I think the numbers are abit skewd..
Its hard to measure things in other nations.  China especially..
Yes, cars are a major concern. but,
1. listing CO2 are the major contaminate??  dont cover the rest of them.
2. the USA is not the major manufacture any more.

As bobbo pointed out, there is one so-called aerial ocean, a term I got from one of the climate change books I've read. Sorry I don't remember which. All CO2 from all sources dumps into the atmosphere. Only one measurement is required to measure it.

Further, the U.S. is still the major cause of CO2 output. It is important to remember that a third of China's CO2 is to manufacture goods for the U.S. So, it is our CO2. We've just outsourced it.

Lastly, there are over 3.7 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere last I looked at the CO2 counter near Penn Station in NYC. Over 1 trillion tons of that are human output of CO2. There are almost 600 billion tons of human CO2 output absorbed by the ocean. That's 1.6 teratons of CO2 we have dumped.

What other pollutant is measured in such quantities?

If that doesn't convince you, consider that at 6 degrees centigrade warmer than pre-industrial times, as a direct result of that non-human caused warming, the Permian/Triassic extinction killed 95% of all multicellular species on the planet. We have already raised temperatures by 1C and are committed, due to the 10 year lag in the effect of the CO2, to another 1C, making a 2C guarantee. That's if we stop all fossil fuel burning and deforestation and other sources of CO2 output today.

We're not stopping.

6C is well within our business as usual forecasts. So, if we do nothing, we guarantee the extinction of 95% of the multicellular life on the planet. Humans being large warm-blooded animals, a category that fares very poorly in mass extinctions, are virtually guaranteed to go extinct in the atmosphere full of toxic levels of hydrogen sulfide gas that did result in the P/T extinction and will again if we see that warming again.

I'm all for cleaning up our other messes too. But, if you want to list something other than CO2 as the number one pollutant, you must show that it will cause 95% of all multicellular life on the planet to go extinct or that you have another toxin of which we have dumped 1.6 trillion tons into the biosphere.

Good luck.

I think you are severely underestimating the effects and certainty of climate change.

Missing from your calculations is how much CO2 is sequestered by trees/plants, and how much more would be sequestered if a major replanting of the 50% of removed forests were present to sequester CO2! It took 3 Centuries to denude Planet Earth of half of its arboreal cover, but how fast can this be reversed if given the proper incentives/sales pitch? Granted it is not the total answer to excess CO2, but it is a forgotten factor which is doable!

Obtuser--reforestation?  This issue came up on another thread here only a few months ago?  Its all about SCALE!!  How much carbon will x number of trees take out of the atmosphere compared to how many Millions of Tons of Coal will be burned?

I don't think the SCALE of the two come within shouting distance of one another.  Re forestation is negligible, not to mention that it will never happen, in fact can't happen.

Hey Scotty--I know you don't relate to this but isn't the "most real" solution given all the competing interests a "MOON SHOT PROGRAM" to green energy so as to cut carbon pollution to near zero and as the lag time becomes apparent to all flat earthers go ahead and develop carbon sequestration technologies?  I still love that vine that grows fast that can be used for paper and fiber and as a concrete brick replacement==real sequestration.

You know Scotty--I felt the same a few months ago, but you have again really "dismayed" me.  I don't see how we avoid the COMPLETE COLLAPSE you recount at 6 degree rise.  Even the recent tv show on that issue did not talk about HS2 (sic?) release being triggered.  It all looks like we are on the Titanic and we have already hit the ice berg.  The only "saving" that could have taken place was COMPLETE RECOGNITION OF THE SITUATION and the ship steered into an iceberg for the people to evacuate onto.  You can't take that kind of action without the compete recognition.  How come "science" isn't yelling louder---even in our backward science rejecting end of times bellowing society?

Gurgle, gurgle.

I'm not sure what you mean by a moon shot program. Perhaps you mean a huge and expensive government program to implement renewable energy technologies with breakneck speed and just fix the problem in less than a decade. I'd be for that.

But, that may not be a good indicator.

I'd also be for a sun shot program where we take all of the stupid people on the planet (about 999 out of every 1,000 or so), put them in a huge rocket. Launch it at the sun and ... all of our problems will be temporarily solved, at least for the short and medium term.

Regarding reforestation, it's an important bit of the equation. It will help to keep rainfall where it is needed by bringing the rain inland. Evapotranspiration is the word for that. It does also help to sequester carbon, if the trees are not farmed and repeatedly cut.

The problem is that a new forest has far less carbon than an old growth forest, especially in temperate climates. In an old growth temperate forest, 99% of the carbon is in the soil. So, a new forest does not replace the carbon sink of a clearcut area. When forests are clearcut, not only is the carbon in the trees released, so is the carbon in the rapidly eroding soil.

Regarding "science" yelling louder, it is. It is yelling as loudly as its limited funds allow. ExxonMobil and Old King Coal can scream a lot louder, billions and billions of dollars louder.

Scotty--we did go thru a closely related issue a while back.  Still, "my gut" (sic) still tells me the scale of the two issues are wildly disproportionate.

To advance the position, I'd think it is encumbent on you to find an estimate of how much carbon could be sequestered by all possible forrestation and then for extra credit how much by reasonably possible means?

The amount of carbon spewed forth minute by minute is well documented.

This is a "must know" new item.  No reason for this not to be the new soylent green:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/newsinc/landing_page.html?vid=517334560&sitesection=huffingtonpost

....as my faith decrees:  SCIENCE to the rescue.

I never have understood the whole "fish meal" cycle.  All the stories about "undesireable side catch" being killed and dumped back into the sea.  Why not two bins:  one for the catch du jour, the other for fish meal?  Should help a little bit?  And fish even have SCALE....s.

Partial Quote: "  It all looks like we are on the Titanic and we have already hit the ice berg.  The only "saving" that could have taken place was COMPLETE RECOGNITION OF THE SITUATION and the ship steered into an iceberg for the people to evacuate onto.  You can't take that kind of action without the compete recognition." unquote.

I suggest that the titanic is a poor choice for an analogy. The real reason the titanic sank was that the steel making in that era was not done in accordance with knowledge and practices to lower the ductile to brittle energy shelf to well below the freezing temperature of Sea Water [which is lower than 32 degrees F. due to the brine concentration lowering the solidus boundary. My metallurgical bosses in the steel mills used to discuss this as being themain  reason for the hull's sudden brittle failure upon contact with the iceberg! And hence steering the ship towards the ice a second time would have just shortened the time to submersion!

Modern steel making for low temperature service is a much improved science over the days of the Titanic. I personally have done the testing, on large angles and channels for the conveyors that were built for Tumbler Ridge, B.C's open pit metallurgical coal deposits to be shipped to Japan.  That project was not completed prior to a big recession and that company went bankrupt. The Town of Tumbler Ridge is now used as a low cost retirement center out in the middle of next to no where! Those conveyors if they are still there were capable of the ordered tolerance of -20 F. and some of them actually met -40 F., but that is what you can get if you add some Nickle to the steel, lower the Carbon a bit, and up the Manganese plus a touch of Chromium. We had part of this in our scrap metals stock from crush automobiles including enough Copper so that all told it was meeting the second level for corrosion resistance, too! Timing in business is everything....

Obtuser--all true and completely irrelevant to what I posted.  You and Scott do that more than you should---as in you should never do that.

Read again and see if you can't tell why your comment is completely irrelevant.  If you don't post back saying you need more direction to identify the dots, I'll know you have recognized your mistake.

Well, for grins I took a run at doing the calculation myself.  Very interesting as I google around to see how much info is out there.  SCADS!

This is totally unrealistic but  I'll use the amount of arable and pasture land as 1160x10 to the 7th ACRES that are capable of sequestering 4.6x10 to the 7th tons of co2.

Then==in 2005 we burned/emitted 13.2 x 10 7th tons of co2.  So as suspected under a best case scenario the amount of co2 produced is three to one.  I am totally sure my calucaltion is worse than flawed.  Its just my first go.  Some of this info is hard to scope out, so it could take awhile.  So much better to find an expert on point?

6,000 million metric tons – Amount of global carbon dioxide (CO2) release into the atmosphere in 2005 /// http://www.gogreencommercially.com/go-green-facts/

The pedosphere is the outermost layer of the Earth that is composed of soil and subject to soil formation processes. It exists at the interface of the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. Currently the total arable land is 13.31% of the land surface, with only 4.71% supporting permanent crops.[14] Close to 40% of the Earth's land surface is presently used for cropland and pasture, or an estimated 1.3×107 km2 of cropland and 3.4×107 km2 of pastureland.[105]   ///  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Its only a start.  What I don't understand ((already?)) is how the jungles can sequester a given  amount of co2 PER YEAR.  Seems to me a forrest jungle is capable only of sequestering a SET AMOUNT of carbon and thats it.  Something is not making sense.===and I notice I have lost my link to the yearly amount of c02 a Jungle Hectare can sequester.

Well, I'm tire.  Just a fun quickie that took an hour.

This is a "must know" new item.  No reason for this not to be the new soylent green:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/newsinc/landing_page.html?vid=517334560&sitesection=huffingtonpost

....as my faith decrees:  SCIENCE to the rescue.

I never have understood the whole "fish meal" cycle.  All the stories about "undesireable side catch" being killed and dumped back into the sea.  Why not two bins:  one for the catch du jour, the other for fish meal?  Should help a little bit?  And fish even have SCALE....s.

Remember, something must always be lost in each generation of blood to maggot to feed for an animal and back to blood. So, this won't sustain a stable number of feedstock. They did not say in the video whether this technique kills any disease in the blood before getting recycled back into our livestock. Remember bovine encephalitis was caused by feeding cattle to cattle. Some of the feed had some beef fat or other parts of beef in it at a time when "science" believed the cattle just needed a set of nutrients. They thought it didn't matter where those nutrients came from. It does. If diseases do not survive the cycle, this would be fine. But, we should watch for the possibility of some bacteria evolving to take advantage of the short cycle from animal to fly to animal again. Bacterial evolution is often even faster than human cultural evolution just because of the short time per generation.

I agree about bycatch. Some environmental orgs have tried to highlight the issue by having bycatch picnics. I remember going to one at the north end of Manhattan years ago.