http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... GU20130117


I thought that was pretty cool. We don't have enough doughnut islands.

Good idea until the sea level rises.

If they can build an island from the sea bed, then I imagine if they had to make it a few meters higher that wouldn't be insurmountable. A lot smaller problem than Holland would have, for example.

Besides, it's part of a "green" movement which might help reduce sea rise.

Unfortunately the problem is that big sea level rises are now a certainty. The only issue is will we do enough now to stop the rises continuing the next century? Chances are that we will be too short sighted to do that either.

Nothing about the climate is a certainty until it happens. We can say that this or that thing is predicted by the models we have but the models are be definition imperfect. The best we can say is that all the models agree that X will happen, so it is more likely. But that's a world from 'certainty'.

Most scientists are agreed that sea levels will rise by as much as 30cm by 2050 there is also a possibility that it could rise substantially more than that, but the odds for that are lower right now. The models do not predict sea levels falling. If governments actually did cut emissions to zero tomorrow the climate will still continue on its path with rising sea levels for many decades but the further out the prognosis would be substantially better. The problem is that no one alive today will benefit. Hence no motivation by governments to seriously deal with the issue. It is a bit like the pensions problem. Most do not want to face up to the fact that they have been misled into thinking that they can ever retire with a decent standard of living.

If they do, they are rubbish scientists. Prediction, even backed up by simulation, != proof. I suspect the scientists actually say 'they believe this will most probably happen' and somewhere between there and the media the 'most probably' gets dropped. Because, you know, we the public can't deal with uncertainty.

Now, I happen to agree with the notion that it's wise to proceed as if the worst will happen, because then if it does you're at least prepared and if it doesn't you're still fine. I remember a cartoon with two scientists and one of them says "but what if climate change isn't as bad as we think? We'll have improved the world for nothing!" That's not the same as saying these things are 'certain' or have been 'proved' because in a rigorous scientific sense they aren't and they haven't.

In the same way, even though we've had a theory and model that says the Higgs Boson exists for years, we still spent billions actually finding it because then we had evidence. We can't have evidence for climate change that hasn't happened yet only what has and from that we make predictions, but those predictions are still not 'true' until what they predict happens or doesn't.

Hypothesis - experiment - evidence - proof. That's the basis of what science is. If we're saying what will happen in 2050 we only have the first two of those. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to assume the prediction is wrong, if to do so is to invite disaster.

I might be partially responsible for misquoting the scientists. Though I do agree with preparing for the worst. I have no problems with making the world a better place just in case. The problem is that so many people like some readers of our daily newspapers do not believe in Climate Change and do hate the idea of making any changes that would reduce our nations impact because the Chinese are not doing it. China is a developing nation who have serious problems of their own if you read about the pollution problems in Beijing last week. They will be dealing with their immediate problems but they are also leapfrogging the West in usage of renewables bar possibly Iceland and Germany.

Simple and clever - I like it