Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46909)	1/28/2014 2:35:40 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Wharfie, it's not the final sea level that matters, it's the effect on people of the sea level rise. Perhaps it needs explanation that 15,000 people died and huge tracts of cities and other property were destroyed. That was a catastrophe. It's odd that you don't understand that. <Far more worrying than "10 metres in 1 second as experienced in Japan not long ago" is your grasp on reality. When it was all over, sea levels had dropped 10 meters in 2 seconds, and was back at the level it was prior to the quake,> Any particular sea level has no particular value outside the effect of that sea level on people. The effect on people is a function of the rate of the change. A sea level rise of 100 metres over 1000 years is trivial in effect. A sea level rise of 100 metres over 1 second would be a catastrophically calamitous cataclysm. If you ask people "Would you like a permanent sea level change of 100 metres continuously increasing over 1000 years or a sea level change of 10 metres over 1 second now, with reversion to the previous sea level an hour later?" they will choose the first one. Do you really not understand that? Mqurice