Strategies for a Changing Planet: Shelter

It's a pretty scary totalitarian climo-nazi dystopia Frenchman envisions. But if it means razing the sort of single-dwelling ivory-tower that can spawn such a go-green-Goebbels, then I'm all for it.

The mini-nuke idea is counter to the worldwide trend post-Fukushima, where most "first-world" countries (exception: US) are planning for and actively replacing nuclear power with solar and other renewable sources. Surprised the article doesn't mention solar at all.

Many of the climate change leaders are recanting. When do people give up on this nonsense?

In any case, I'd be glad to see a strategy shift from trying to prevent [what's not going to happen] to Embrace the Change and slowly prepare for it while continuing to monitor.

Solar Towers with Molten Salt Heat storage is an excellent idea that is happening already.

Thorium reactors also with molten salt is a fantastic idea. One was built in the 60's and the idea scrapped since the fuel couldn't be used to build weapons, but now that we're living in this totally world peace environment, why not put thorium reactors all over the country and strengthen the grid while you're at it? Thorium reactors are extremely safe. Search this publication for an excellent article about them.

Bob's statement about climate change leaders recanting is incorrect.

Actually very few countries are having anything other than a full steam ahead strategy for nukes with China well ahead of the pack, with major work being done on completely American designed pebble bed, fast breeder, and thorium technology.

With the abysmal failure of solar and wind technology and the complete waste of over a trillion dollars of taxpayer subsidy, American's will find themselves buying penny a kwh nukes from China developed from American R&D coming over on shipping containers.

Fuku an accident caused by corruption in an ancient fifties designed reactor, impossible in a modern nuke, resulting in no deaths and a year later damage confined to the reactor itself, confirmed the incredible safety of nukes even in a worst case accident.

In fact if the money wasted to date on wind and solar (35 and 85 cents a kwh) with low efficiency gas backup producing less energy and more GHG's than if the wind/solar was just skipped and high efficiency gas used instead, had been spent on nuke power the world would now be coal free saving a million lives annually from coal air pollution. The impeding warming precipice would have be moved back 50 years or more potentially saving billions of more lives.

Without gas or hydro backup and its enormous subsidy in money and blood of innocents, there would be no wind or solar.

Malevolent not so renewable advocates might start wondering if their uninformed Big Oil funded opposition to a nuke conversion is worth the pollution deaths of three million folks worldwide every year the conversion is delayed and the deaths of billions more when they cause us to slide over the fast approaching climate precipice.

The world's foremost climatologist James Hansen tells us these Denialists are drunk on spiked Green Koolaid - there is a no future for civilization without a massive conversion to nuclear power in a 15 year nuke build program impossible with renewables.

I appluad people for their opinions. I really like to see people comment on PoPSCi! But for those who push those opinions as facts, they need to give supporting evidence to back up those opinions.

@Bob_F
"I respect you opinion but"
Many recanting climate change leaders are wrong, some just want to go against the norm. If you really look at the world as a whole, statistically from the past, taking geology in to respect, and earths past climate history, never has the planet changed so fast, and in such a way. Even in my life time, it has become abundantly clear that the climate is getting worse, weather patterns are changing more rapidly, were seeing weather events in areas they dont belong, and storm intensity is far worse. Looking at a whole picture it is clear something not natural is causing this. Is it really that hard to believe it is not human interaction, when were are the only addition to the equation.

@jwjknorr.

Last winter, North America was quite warm. Conversely, Europe was extremely cold. One must look at both sides of the ledger when deciding weather is extreme. Also, where are all the weather records being broken? Many heat records were made before or in the early stages of the industrial age. It's unfortunate good records don't go back much further.

These facts are cause for justifiable skepticism.

I don't believe the science exists to forecast the climate 10-20-50 years out. I do believe the Earth is a self-correcting system that will keep the climate environment in a livable state for the extremely long future. A news article pointed out last week that volcanoes could cool the Earth (Gee, no kidding)

I certainly don't know what the climate is going to be either. AGW is a money making scheme, just as all other climate scares before it. It's a tax. My opinion. Someone wake me up when the ocean is lapping up onto the boardwalk at Pacific Beach, San Diego.

99.9% of 'science' over time is in the trash can.

There are plenty of reasons to be Skeptical.

People are dying right now because of the biofuels experiment and the doubling to tripling of the price of corn and therefore many other food commodities. Why grow soybean when you can get 6 a bushel for corn?

Al Gore and friends ought to to be at the Hague for genocide trials in my opinion.

Is the rest of the world on board with this? Sure China appears to intend to want to build nukes. They are currently using large amounts of oil and coal and their economy is more important to them than GW. How about India. TATA just invented a $2500 car. Imagine how many people in India will be driving those as the years go by.

I'm sure the Earth has gotten since the last official ice age ended, no question about that. As I said originally, let's put the resources towards adapting for a change that might or might no occur.

Per Sethdayl - let's get busy building safe nuclear plants and stop diverting money to half solutions(at best) like wind and solar. You're not going to get 100 million people a day to work and back on solar or wind. Hybrids are imo the best alternative now and maybe all electric when the battery technology becomes viable and the electric grid can handle it.

The worst thing that would come out of that is clean air.
Then people could sigh and say we averted the climate change monster - I don't care.

Anyway, a combination of facts and my opinion. You all are cordially welcome to yours. I think GW believers are in for a surprise 10-20 years from now and on.

No matter where any of us stand philosphically on Global Warming / Climate Change issues, I think everyone can agree that in order to better prepare for a futue with many, many more peope in it we must begin to take steps to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the best possible opportunities for a healthy life.
I understand that some countires do not have the viable resources and depth of technology at this point that many Western and European countries have. However, someone has to lead and set a higher standard. Even if we muck it up, we are headed in a better direction than waiting around for someone else to have a go at it!

Our climate on this planet has gone through dramatic changes from ice ball earth to fire ball earth. Up until about six thousand years ago the average temperatures changed from year to year were by about 150 degrees and these wide swings were in both directions hot and cold. The average temperature of one year would be 150 degrees different from the next year.If the average temperature of this year is 50 degrees then the average temperature of the next year would be either a -200 degrees or a +200 degrees. The swings in temperature were so great nothing like agriculture or anything like our living standards could be sustained.
This current six thousand year calm in earth weather is the unusual not the usual. Our mild weather is not the default weather state of this earth. The climatologists are talking about a tipping point. At what point does the climate switch back to its default.

I love this. Every time climate change is brought up, a shitstorm erupts in the Popsci comments section. It's like magic, mention climate change and suddenly, EVERYONE IS A CLIMATOLOGIST. It's absolutely eerie! Not to mention people bring up STUNNING NEW REVELATIONS that turn the entire debate on it's head, revelations that are COMPLETELY NEW TO SCIENCE, which climatologists have never considered in their wildest dreams, such as CLOUDS and the SUN. Or, even better, these BRAVE, INTREPID EXPERTS will have uncovered a VAST GLOBAL CONSPIRACY driven by a money-hungry cabal of scientists that have manufactured consensus everywhere from Argentina to Zimbabwe in order to get funding for the nefarious purpose of STUDYING THE PHENOMENON FURTHER!

Kidding aside, this is just like the evolution "debate." The only one's debating are those that don't understand and aren't experts, and those laypeople that try to defend the experts. There is no debate among those that actually study it. Sure, like evolution, they quibble over the particulars, but they near-unanimously agree that it's happening, and that humans are a factor. Seeing as I'm not qualified to either dissent with the scientific consensus nor am I qualified to accurately represent their findings to the denialists, I'm just going to leave the "debate" to the rest.
---
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.

Speaking of facts, how about some credible sources to back up these opinions by all the above posters? Without sources, these comments are really pointless.

Cookiees453,
I would not consider them pointless, but simply what they are, opinions. You opinion is worth considering too. From free speech to voting our individual point of view matters!

Still, with the internet at our finger tips, how easy is it to make a comment and then include a credit scientific factual link supporting that comment. Ah that would be helpful.

In my general observation of life and my opinion now, as efficent as nuclear energy maybe, it does not seem we have come up yet with an efficent managment system for the disposal of waste nuclear energy. For me, when I read article promoting nuclear energy, the articles goes tend to great length of the pros and almost nothing concrete of a solid statment is said, "This is how we will safely, efficently dispose of the waste", that point is always left off.

I really have enjoy the variety of people commenting today.
KUDOS to ALL OF YOU!

Community Shared Electric Cars:

Good idea in concept but I think large-scale implementation would be difficult. We'll have to slowly phase this in to see how it takes.

Neighborhood Nukes

I love the idea in a different form: Thorium Reactors, 0% chance of melting down, very low amounts of waste produced, easy to shield radiation. I don't know all that much about nuclear battery systems (which is essentially what these micro nuclear plants are), but I'd rather see Thorium take root. While I love renewables (and thorium is technically a renewable source), solar, wind, and geothermal can't provide the consistent and scalable power we need. They are great supplemental energy sources, but for not, not yet developed enough to be primary energy sources.

Really Local Eats

Again, love the idea of Vertical Farms. Some designs even call for fish and poultry production. I envision the VF itself producing and selling food, but a micro-economy could sprout around it specializing in prepared foods: restaurants, pickled/spiced foods, butchers, etc. Its a win-win for everybody!

Recycling

I do believe there is a cleaner/more productive way to recycle, but hardly studied in the area.

Multi-Function Buildings

We're essentially talking about an arcology. And I'm all for it.

"This is how we will safely, efficiently dispose of the waste"

OK here it is. I'm sorry you have so much trouble doing simple research on your own.

All the world's nuke waste would fit on a football field - this while awaiting destruction in Gen IV reactors like India's new unit - cheaper than a gas plant, in service this year and first of 5 to 2020. It is enough fuel to power all the world's energy needs for a thousand years.

The Brits are entertaining GE's proposal to build its Prism reactor on its own dime to eliminate waste in that country. This solution is impossible in the US because of the malevolent antinuke movement which runs the White House.

The tiny amount left is the same level as higrade natural uranium. Shove it back in the mine shaft.

Finland and Sweden are perfectly happy with their waste solution burying the tiny amount of the stuff underground. The only problem with America's solution - Yucca - is the White House.

Given the silliness of this irrational fear, we need to ask the low information nonuker why they would rather destroy the world in a rapidly approaching civilization ending global warming precipice than lose a football field to nuke waste.

@bob f

Some of what you say it true, some sounds political in nature, and in and of its self false. Sounds like something rush limbaugh would say. Look at china please. There use of coal and oil has lead them in just a few years to have more than half their available land that could be farmed to be useless and dry, a dust bowel in essence. Im not saying climate change is a fact, but its better safe than sorry. I can say its might be happening , you cant say its definitely not happening. As for beaches, there is none in ocean city nj anymore, all but gone during high tide, its a real shame, when i was a child it was beautiful.

@Bob_F
Science is based on evidence. This is a science site. You made erroneous statements unsupported by fact.

@sethdayal
We don't know the long term casualties of the Fuku meltdown. It's not longterm yet.
To say solar and wind is wasted money is like saying you shouldn't work out for 30 minutes a day because you don't burn all the calories in that 30 minutes required to break even for the day. Every little bit counts and searching for a "perfect solution" is what we teach children not to do because it leads to inaction. The first cars got very poor gas mileage, should we have stopped producing them before horses were more efficient at the time and more cost effective?

@Bob_F
Once again I refer to science presenting facts when debating a topic.

Genocide-the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Please tell me which group of people or nation Al Gore murdered.

Volcanoes? If they all did erupt at once, causing mass debris stopping the sun getting through to cool the planet, the effect would be...the sun not getting through to warm the planet. If the sun doesn't get through, it won't be a "livable state for the extremely long future." Have fun farming with no sunlight.

As to your request to let you know when the sea level is rising in PB:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13389

You obviously don't go to the beach often or you would have noticed massive erosion at Blacks Beach, Horse Shoes, Scripps, Imperial Beach, La Jolla Shores and Georges just to names a few. The La Jolla Reef beaches becoming such a concern for the residents that they discussed bringing in sand from the desert to "create more beach."

The information is out there Bob_F. We can't make you believe it, you have to want to become a smarter person.

@ocmclean
150 degree temp changes year to year six thousand years ago? Hmmm. I'd love to see some scientific evidence to support your claim.

@Robot
No, his opinion isn't "worth considering too." Science isn't opinion, science is based on empirical evidence to support or disprove a "hunch." It is then presented to fellow scientists to be minutely studied and questioned and once again proven. Einstein didn't present the theory of relativity and walk away. He had the hypothesis then published and discussed it for the next eleven years.

@Bobf
I generally agree with what you're saying, but some of it is just ludicrous! Who the He77 is "dying" from biofuel corn consumption? What, the Africans who 1)we wouldn't have given all this corn to anyway and 2)even if we did would still be starving strictly from political issues? It sure as heck isnt the population in North America thats starving if you havent noticed. Please remember: its not what you say, but how you say it! Otherwise, you inadvertently make your supporters look as st00pid as what you say...

Inequality is not sustainable and cannot be managed. Good Luck.

mjsd555, this is a science-mixed-with-opinion-and-other-fun-stuff site. If you want straight science, go to www.nature.com.

Solar and wind power are "wasted money" when they don't make economic sense. They make a heckuva lot of sense for remote communities where other forms of energy are more expensive. But when utility rates for solar and wind can't compete with other forms of power and are subsidized by taxpayers, they are wasting money.

Several of these are interesting ideas. I like the "neighborhood nukes" one.

A couple don't make sense to me. I don't see how a roughly 28% increase in world population (from 7 billion to 9 billion) will mean millions will overcrowd cities. Many of the largest cities aren't even growing in population. People are moving to growing suburban areas near those cities where land is still available. A lot of big cities, like Hong Kong or Manhattan, are naturally restricted by the local environment so expansion isn't possible except by building expensive high rises, which are then occupied only by the very wealthy.

Ditto, the idea of "really local eats." Land is so expensive in dense cities that it will probably always be cheaper to ship it in from rural farms than to grow it in the city, unless you are lucky enough to have a small chunk of land dedicated to community gardening.

@ J. James

Um, you do realize that is debate within climatology about certain aspect of anthropomorphic climate change? The general consensus is pretty solid, but major arguments are still underway regarding best practices, models, etc... And thats a good thing!

@ laurenra7

Good call on Nature Journal. The best climate change articles to get published there. I wish more people would use the site. Good opinions and you can usually find a free for view article bu searching the names of important articles in Nature on google.

About the cities, it really depends on how you define 'City'. Its probably best to go with metropolitan. And metropols are probably growing, although i cant back that up yet with a paper.

mjsd555,
People opinions, even bad opinions have merit towards science. We pursue, create and use science for the benefit of us humans. The science we aquire, we flip it around and make use of it. So then society does get involved, often pays for this science and because of that, peoples votes and opinions do matter. .... even what appears to be a bad opinion; everyone deserves to have a voice and to be heard.

@mjsd555 - You misrepresent me. I have said all along that I don't know if it's happening or not. In my opinion the forecasted effects are over-blown. I am congratulating anyone with a strategy based on living with it if and when.

@masamune2823

Regards starvation-a few of many

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a91cca1e-b635-11e1-8ad0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20EQ3ojhI

http://etfdailynews.com/2012/07/09/agriculture-concern-major-drought-is-causing-corn-prices-to-surge-corn-dba-moo-de-mon-agu/

http://allafrica.com/stories/201207091468.html

@robot. The MIT kids have solved the nuclear waste problem.
Additionally, The Thorium based reactors being discussed are breeder reactors and they consume their own fuel.

@all
Man made global warming is a Theory, not science fact. Many respected scientists say it is BS. This is common knowledge.

Good luck to all you folks. Seriously. Enjoy your life. We're on a rock flying through space. K?

@jwjknorr, rising oceans, if they are, are not the only cause for beach erosion. In fact, sand for beaches come from other beaches. As discussed here.

http://www.erosion.com/beacherosion.asp

@masamune2823, Didn't realize more than one person was complaining abut my starvation claim. See links above, I just type starvation rising food costs into google and picked these 3 off the top.

And the genocide referred to is occurring within the group of people in the poverty group. Doesn't have to be a particular race/nation.

@someone else. I wouldn't call this a science site. I would call it a 'popular science' site.

@ Bobf

You posted three links. The first doesn't work. The second is about this summer, which I agree is going to hurt farmers but is in no way going to bring us even close to starvation. Americans can eat 50% less and we still wouldn't be starving, and our a$$es could honestly use it. The third link (aside from being about africa, which we can't do anything about) states exactly what I was saying before; that political issues are screwing farmers and thats whats driving up food prices and causing starvation in the poor, not the lack of food per se.

You thought I wouldn't check the validity of the links. Good job making yourself look stupid.

@masammune,

You environment people sure are touchy. Doesn't help your cause to be this rabid about it.

Ok, try this one.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23079

Rising Food Prices and the Egyptian Tinderbox: How Banks and Investors Are Starving the Third World

This talks about how commodity speculation is the culprit. But you'll have to use your brain a little if you have one.

Commodity speculation occurs because of a hot commodity. A hit commodity is defined as one that is rising in price. The commodities we're talking about are rising in price because of the search for alternate fuels.

Ironic that biofuels pollute more than petroleum as well.

Or you can do your own search, the exercise might do you some good.

Oh, I completely agree with your overall point BobF, like I said before. I'm not a fan of corn ethanol for fuel in N. America, and the resources it wastes could be put to other purposes. But I'm even less of a fan of sensationalism, especially if that sensationalism has no merit, such as the claim that people are starving and dying DIRECTLY as a result of the redirection of farmland from soy to corn.

Perhaps you should read the very article you posted. As the article states, profiteering from food started in 1991 and has NOTHING to do with corn-based ethanol overtaking wheat production. Although it does have everything to do with, as you say, speculators hoarding food, but this isn't at all related to ethanol production.

Direct from the article you posted: "Some economists said the hikes were caused by increased demand by Chinese and Indian middle class population booms and the growing use of corn for ethanol. But according to Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi, demand from those countries actually fell by 3 percent over the period; and the International Grain Council stated that global production of wheat had increased during the price spike."

"global production of wheat had increased during the price spike" Enough said

My argument stands: Food shortages in the third world are all political, and have nothing to do with a grain to fuel project in North America, regardless of its inefficiency. By posting this last article, you've helped prove my point.

Your overall opinion is one that I think many can agree with, but the sensationalist "facts" that you've haphazardly entered within your original post will turn off potential supporters. Tone it down if you want to make a valid point. Otherwise, you leave gaps for others (like myself) to exploit and bash you on.

Furthermore, its interesting that although you seem like a pretty conservative guy, you posted an article that touts greater regulation in food supply and trading....very interesting!

Pop sci is so stubborn force feeding this fake science called "climate change". I'm so happy I canceled my subscription, this is not science, science looks at both sides.

"Smart Cities" sounds like ghetto's to me

"Community cars" sounds like communism.

Unless you know about AGENDA 21 you no nothing about the global warming agenda.

@masamune2823

Thank you for your reasoned reply. Yes, I agree some parts of this article disagree with my hypothesis. I will say that 1) It is difficult to find articles these days that aren't in the tank for man made climate change, and 2) I could be wrong.

I did see the 3% fall in demand. fwiw - That kind of stuff gets my nose twitching. It's like one of the GW videos I'd watched - one of the accepted ones. The narrator was talking about how some peninsula in Antarctica was 25 sq miles (a pin prick on the Earth) at some point in time and now was only 5 sq miles. He/they failed to mention that Antarctica grew in total mass during the same time period.(my look at both sides of the ledger comment)

I don't mean to and won't get into a discussion about 'the science'. (So, I didn't mention this for that purpose. It's a waste of time. Very polarized and incendiary.)

Well, I'll say I've been an observer of the human condition for a good while now. I've also seen a lot of scams and cons come and go. Believe me, this is the best one I've seen if it is one. It can neither be proven or disproven. Therefore we are left with only our wits to navigate.

Who is right? I don't really care. I'm not about who is right. And in this case, I do believe no one knows. We won't know until some time in the future.

I have been reading about starving people in 3rd world nations for several years now. And it's no simple task to find a website that says "People are starving because of unnaturally inflated food prices." :) Again, back to our wits, and again still - let's take a strategy that has the most benefit to people today and tomorrow just in case. To me, that is preparing for a warmer Earth regardless the cause.
If we are cleaning the air, making more economical energy (nuclear), and other things that qualify in this regard, it's all good.

Climate change is common sense. The more co2 and other chemicals we emit into our atmosphere the hotter the planet gets. They act as greenhouse gases. Why is the sea level rising? http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019626.shtml

@ Bob_F

Good debate, its great that you are able to reason effectively and admit that you could be wrong and that sources are an issue. And generally i agree food prices are linked to politics, this is theory.

Which is why im confused about your comments regarding anthropomorphic climate change as a theory, or 'BS' as you put it :)

I would like to quote you on "Many respected scientist say it is BS". Firstly, where is your source for this? And second, this is false.

Almost all respected scientists regard anthropomorphic climate change as theory. I believe you are using the term theory without knowing its definition. Regarding scientific theories (as apposed to philosophical), this general definition is pretty decent;

"In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." - National Academy of Sciences (you can find the source easily enough, you can even lift it off wikipedia).

Climate change driven by 'we the people' is a good theory. It has been repeatably confirmed using experimental procedure. Im not talking about global warming, but human driven climate change. The are two different subjects; global warming is a small part of man made climate change.

Fortunately, since i work in academia, I have access to vast amounts of papers and research journals regarding the subject. I have done research in designing more resistant GMO crops. Climate change and its data comes up quite often.

General consensus by most respected scientists in the discipline is that anthropomorphic climate change is theory. Based upon substantiated fact which has been gleaned by decades of experimental procedure.

I could give you 100's of peer reviewed academic articles, in dozens of high impact journals (if you could through the damned paywalls), and they all say the thing. There is a minority of scientists who do not believe that it is a good theory, and there may be a few respected who disagree, but the general consensus is that anthropomorphic climate change is good theory.

I find a very nice article regarding the subject, that is thankfully free for view, is this in the link below. Give it a good read.

http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/rockstrom-etc-liverman-2009-nature.pdf

And let me just say this, if the research had shown that man made climate change is BS, I would fully agree with you. But being mostly impartial, regarding the research done, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Anthropologic Global warming is a unverified and untestested hypothises of consensus based on computer models using limited data and a lot of estimates
The Scientists running projects like Japan's Ibuki and Canada's CANX-2 and of course the Next generation weather Satilites (all part of the "A-train") are still collecting the reltime Co2 concentration and flow data from 50,000 locations and realtime tempature variations to compare to the IPCC Co2 origin,flow,and termination models and local CO2 constentration vs local tempature models
Already the Idea that CO2 is "created" over human cities and flows to the ocean has been falsified out with a worldwide 266ppm to 390ppm average depending on Climate Region and Season with Poles having no airborne CO2 (to cold no evaporation/percipiation for Co2 to ride via water vapor)
I prefer to live in my grove and hug my trees vs this Greener nonscense that will still take millions of barrels of oil to contruct and maintain A DAY in this "oil age" where solar pannels are made from oil,windmills are made from oil,fertilizers are made from oil,drugs are made from oil and building materials are made from oil (or coal in the case of dry wall and cement/concrete filler)

Again, why is everyone so hooked on "Global Warming"? Thats massive oversimplification. You need to talk about global climate change, and how we have affected that.

In general, the warming part is overblown, but all cumulative anthropomorphic changes to the environment will certainly affect climate change. CO2 is a tiny part of the overall picture, and our climate has had a more CO2 rich atmosphere in the past. Please move on from the straw man.

"Anthropologic Global warming is a unverified and untestested hypothises of consensus based on computer models using limited data and a lot of estimates"

Hardly limited data, we have a lot. And you do understand how research is done? You have an unverified hypothesis, and you so you test it. Preferably, you test it in a controlled environment, but if you cant, you have to use models. All models have limited data and use estimates, to put it simply. But they do approximate, and for a reason. Again, we dont simply cook models out of thin air. Neither are the results something to ignore. Almost all models work on underlying principles like math, physics, chemistry, etc. Drug modeling works, even though its mostly estimates regarding variables. It could go on and on about this. Climate models are not that much different. And we have enough competing models to know that when most of them conclude that we are driving climate change partially (some climate change is entirely natural), its a pretty good indicator.

Have a read of this if your interested in current models for climate change

"Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data."

Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Masa Kageyama, Patrick J. Bartlein, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Bette Otto-Bliesner & Yan Zhao

Nature Climate Change 2, 417–424 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1456, Published online 25 March 2012

Free for view link to above article;

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Braconnot_etal_2012.pdf

Another good article on current models for climate change;

"Quantifying future climate change."

Matthew Collins, Richard E. Chandler, Peter M. Cox, John M. Huthnance, Jonathan Rougier & David B. Stephenson

Nature Climate Change 2, 403–409 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1414
Published online 25 May 2012

(Free for View Version)
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/18435/1/MatNatureCCNORAtxt.pdf

To quote the conclusion;

"To conclude, it is possible to produce quantitative projections of climate change, combining
382 models of varying complexity and observations, expressed in terms of probabilities that
383 measure our current uncertainty in those projections. Of course, our knowledge, as embodied in
384 models and observations, may improve in time and thus we might be able to reduce those
385 uncertainties. However, the possibility that new models, new observations or new theoretical
386 research might alter the current set of projections considerably cannot be ruled out. For
387 example, new feedbacks may be discovered or resolution thresholds are crossed so that
388 previously parameterised process are directly resolved in models."

Enjoy

@warzones. I don't have anything to add to what I've already said. I don't believe the research papers. I don't believe the science.

If you're an American and you care about your country and your future, look into Agenda 21.

@ Bob_F

Im not american :)

But how can you not believe the science? Its the same science that brings you computers and modern medicine, vaccines and airplanes, the standard model and the nuclear bomb, to name a very few. The car you probably drive, the internet you are using. They all work, due to 'science'.

Climate science has not been tailored. Research in it follows the fundamental principles of scientific methodology. Reject that and you reject a lot what you take for granted every day. You cant pick and choose.

There is no political agenda, the only agenda when it comes to climate science and research is to try to find an impartial as possible view of reality...

If there is any agenda its because of what happens to research after it enters the public sphere of discussion, where knowledge is capitalized upon, i.e. politics. Does not mean you should reject science itself...

I believe this article was meant as a suggestion to consequences not yet backed by science, they may never be. I am all for Thorium Reactors. I also believe that the sooner I can get off the grid and develop my own little plot with maximum recycling and minimum carbon footprint the better off I will be. As for projecting any thought on the change of our climate due to any influence, man-made or natural. It is and should all be purely speculative given the amount of time we have had the technology to adequately study it.

I may not be a climatologist, and I may not truly know what I am talking about, but to me climate change is already going to screw us over. We have F'd up our planet bad enough that mother nature is going to B-slap us back into submission. Storms are going to get worse and worse, and the gov't is already accepting that 2011's weather is caused by man-made climate change. And @Aldron, weren't you already given a thrashing because you were an uppity little punk?

It seems that the only ideas that get published are huge government sponsored projects, or tiny DIY projects. There needs to be a middle ground. You can drive a battery powered golf cart all you want but it's your home that needs to change. Here is a form letter from a building company that describes the problem that we face in housing:

Dear (Legislator):

Many of us are doing everything we can to conserve energy, protect human life and property from disasters, and make our beautiful planet the greenest green it can be. But while some changes are easy, some are virtually impossible.

Among the virtually impossibles is the ability of folks to secure a loan to build a nontraditional house that is energy-efficient, disaster-resistant and that does not deplete our natural resources.

Reason: Right now, banks and mortgage companies are legally prohibited from providing money for the construction of a home whose value cannot be appraised, based on similar homes already existing in a given area.

But green homes are the result of relatively young technology. So while they may have been around, constructed and lived in for the past 30 or 40 years, compared to conventional, stick-and-brick, energy-wasting, disaster-prone homes, they are few and far between. That makes getting the necessary appraisal near impossible.

Yet, property tax offices throughout the United States have no problem assessing the value of any home – regardless of how unusual or different it may be. Lenders should be able to use similar yardsticks in valuing a property.

For that to happen, we need to change the current appraising/lending rules banks and lending institutions must now follow. As an American concerned about the welfare of our country and our planet, I am asking you to initiate legislation that would make securing a loan for the construction of a technologically sophisticated but nontraditional home possible. Let’s work together and get greener!

The website (figure it out yourself) has just one example of a nontraditional, technologically sophisticated home for whose construction Americans cannot get mortgages.

Sincerely,
(Your name here)

I personally love the Flattower concept, and there is the possibility of the flat city, a massive version of this, with ordinary skyscrapers sitting in between the holes. Then add in newer power centers, such as the hometown nukes or even a massive solar and wind turbine combo, then add in a community shared transit, not community cars, which I view a little iffy, but a more efficient mass transit, like a more efficient subway, just running through this megalithic complex.

as Billy explained I didnt know that a stay at home mom able to get paid $7613 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage NuttyRich.com

As I read through the comments (which I love to hear the passion pouring out!), it sounds like there are some folks focused on just bettering of the earth, and others comparing finincial/ bettering the earth. All are great points, just make sure both parties are looking through the same window or this could last forever