Obama’s new coal scare: U.S. not the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal « Green Hell Blog
A new report from the Obama administration’s Department of Energy says we may no longer be the “Saudi Arabia of coal,” according to the Wall Street Journal, because we may only have 120, rather than 240 years years of economically accessible reserves.Creeping climate realism at the Washington Post?: East Coast May Feel Rise in Sea Levels the Most
I promise to worry about what people will do for energy in 120 years right after I finish worrying about free enterprise and capitalism surviving the Obama administration.
Sea levels could rise faster along the U.S. East Coast than in any other densely populated part of the world, new research shows, as changes in ice caps and ocean currents push water toward a shoreline inlaid with cities, resort boardwalks and gem-rare habitats.
Three studies this year, including one out last month, have made newly worrisome forecasts about life along the Atlantic over the next century. While the rest of the world might see seven to 23 inches of sea-level rise by 2100, the studies show this region might get that and more -- 17 to 25 inches more -- for a total increase that would submerge a beach chair.
Might.
Scientists say the information comes from computer models, which could be wrong. And the mid-Atlantic region's ample high ground means it will probably never be as vulnerable as Louisiana and Florida.
...
In the 20th century, global seas rose about 0.07 inches per year -- a steady climb up tide gauges, even as the world debated the existence and the science of climate change.
"It doesn't matter who's causing global warming. Sea-level rise is something we can measure," said Rob Young, a geosciences professor at Western Carolina University. "You can't argue that sea level isn't rising."
2 comments:
"Scientists say the information comes from computer models, which could be wrong"
Gee, ya don't think this could actually be possible do you ?
Somebody should tell Al Gore.
The new "running out of coal scare"...
Notice how the greens always shift their argument: First it's "CO2 is the problem it causes warming", then once that has been disproven then they shift to "we're running out of resources", and when that fails "hey this new green thing saves you energy costs".
It's three different arguments, and the CO2 scare was invented precisely because we're nowhere near running out of oil (Alaska = 200 years worth of independence from oil imports into the U.S., Gull island etc.) so they had to come up with something that is tied to oil/coal (CO2) and works no matter how much oil is there (oil/coal are not becoming more scarce but CO2 is becoming too plentyful).
Post a Comment